Martin v Norton Rose Fulbright Australia [2019] FCA 967

Martin v Norton Rose Fulbright Australia [2019] FCA 967

The adjournment was refused because Mr Martin failed to provide supporting affidavit evidence of incapacity as previously indicated was required by the Court, and because the asserted grounds for adjournment relating to estoppel, procedural fairness, and alleged misleading by the respondent had no basis in evidence or were otherwise unsubstantiated. The Court prioritised efficient case management and fair opportunity for parties to prepare for trial, subject to any further proper application with evidence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Application (practice and Procedure) / Interlocutory Application for Adjournment of Pre Trial Case Management Hearing
Outcome
Application for adjournment refused; timetabling and pre-trial orders made with some accommodations to Mr Martin; liberty to apply granted for future applications supported by evidence.
Legal Topics
['adjournment' 'case Management' 'procedural Fairness']
['practice and Procedure'] ['adjournment' 'case Management' 'procedural Fairness']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application (practice and Procedure) / Interlocutory Application for Adjournment of Pre Trial Case Management Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the pre-trial case management hearing should be adjourned' 'Whether procedural fairness required further adjournment' 'Whether evidence supported the application for adjournment']

Ratio Decidendi

The adjournment was refused because Mr Martin failed to provide supporting affidavit evidence of incapacity as previously indicated was required by the Court, and because the asserted grounds for adjournment relating to estoppel, procedural fairness, and alleged misleading by the respondent had no basis in evidence or were otherwise unsubstantiated. The Court prioritised efficient case management and fair opportunity for parties to prepare for trial, subject to any further proper application with evidence.

Court Disposition

Application for adjournment refused; timetabling and pre-trial orders made with some accommodations to Mr Martin; liberty to apply granted for future applications supported by evidence.

Orders

  • ['Timetable set for finalising Court Book index by 4.00 pm on Friday 28 June 2019.' 'Exchange of soft copies of documents by 4.00 pm on Friday 26 July 2019.' 'Delivery of paginated, indexed hard copy of joint Court Book by 4.00 pm on Friday 2 August 2019 to Adelaide Registry; upload electronic version.' 'Responses...