Dudzinski v Kellow [2002] FCA 1364

Dudzinski v Kellow [2002] FCA 1364

The adjournment was refused because the applicant had not shown disadvantage, had been told at a July callover that there was no likelihood of an adjournment, gave no sufficient explanation why he could not prepare the appeal, faced no conflicting hearing, and was not taken by surprise in a way affecting preparation.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 October 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for an Adjournment of the Appeal to the Full Court
Outcome
Application for adjournment refused; applicant ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the motion.
Legal Topics
['adjournment' 'costs' 'case Management']
['civil Procedure' 'appellate Procedure'] ['adjournment' 'costs' 'case Management']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for an Adjournment of the Appeal to the Full Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appeal to the Full Court should be adjourned because the applicant wished to pursue and prepare other proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

The adjournment was refused because the applicant had not shown disadvantage, had been told at a July callover that there was no likelihood of an adjournment, gave no sufficient explanation why he could not prepare the appeal, faced no conflicting hearing, and was not taken by surprise in a way affecting preparation.

Court Disposition

Application for adjournment refused; applicant ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the motion.

Orders

  • ['The application for an adjournment of the appeal to the Full Court be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the respondent's costs of this motion."]