Tsang Chi Ming & Ors v Uvanna Pty Ltd (t/as North West Immigration Services) & Anor [1996] FCA 860

Tsang Chi Ming & Ors v Uvanna Pty Ltd (t/as North West Immigration Services) & Anor [1996] FCA 860

A full adjournment was not justified because the central issues concerned what was said and done in conversations, the relevant applicant evidence had been in the respondents' possession since 7 June 1996, the asserted expert evidence was largely inadmissible or not difficult to answer, no sufficiently relevant prejudice to the respondents was shown, and the respondents' delayed renewed legal aid application did not outweigh the prejudice to the applicants and the public interest in using the allocated hearing time. A short adjournment was appropriate only to identify which smaller number of cases would proceed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 July 1996
Procedural Posture
Application by Respondents to Adjourn a Federal Court Hearing / First Day Scheduled for Hearing
Outcome
Application to adjourn the entirety of the proceedings refused; proceedings adjourned only for a short period to determine which cases would proceed.
Legal Topics
['adjournment' 'prejudice From Alleged Pre Trial Defaults' 'legal Aid Application and Review' 'representative Proceedings Changed to Individual Proceedings' 'alleged False and Misleading Representations by Migration Agent']
['civil Procedure' 'trade Practices' 'fair Trading' 'migration Services' 'legal Aid'] ['adjournment' 'prejudice From Alleged Pre Trial Defaults' 'legal Aid Application and Review' 'representative Proceedings Changed to Individual Proceedings' 'alleged False and Misleading Representations by Migration Agent']

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 by Respondents to Adjourn a Federal Court Hearing / First Day Scheduled for Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the hearing should be adjourned because of alleged prejudice to the respondents from late affidavit evidence, late statements of issues and contentions, discovery issues, subpoena production issues, and asserted need to answer expert evidence.' "Whether the hearing should be adjourned to allow the respondents' renewed legal aid application and review request to be determined." 'Whether all 18 matters needed to proceed together or whether a smaller number could proceed.']

Ratio Decidendi

A full adjournment was not justified because the central issues concerned what was said and done in conversations, the relevant applicant evidence had been in the respondents' possession since 7 June 1996, the asserted expert evidence was largely inadmissible or not difficult to answer, no sufficiently relevant prejudice to the respondents was shown, and the respondents' delayed renewed legal aid application did not outweigh the prejudice to the applicants and the public interest in using the allocated hearing time. A short adjournment was appropriate only to identify which smaller number of cases would proceed.

Court Disposition

Application to adjourn the entirety of the proceedings refused; proceedings adjourned only for a short period to determine which cases would proceed.

Orders

  • ['Proceedings adjourned until 2.15pm on Thursday, 4 July 1996.' 'The respondents were to be in a position by no later than 2.15pm on 4 July 1996 to know which cases they wished to proceed with and to convey their response to the applicants as soon as possible before then.']