Federal Court of Australia
{ ' JUDGMENT No. sent anechabe
CATCHWORDS PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - adjournment - application for adjournment and vacation of hearing - matter part heard -
litigant in person who subsequently briefed counsel -
principles.
GSA Industries Pty Ltd v NT Gas Ltd (1990) 24 NSWLR 710
R v Greer (1992) 62 A Crim R 442
Sali v SPC Ltd & Anor (1993) 116 ALR 625
Squire v Rodgers (1979) 39 FLR 106
Bomanite Pty Ltd v Slatex Corp Aust Pty Ltd (1991) 32 FCR 379
Lenijyamar Pty Limited v AGC (Advances ) Ltd (1990) 27 FCR 388
BRONWYN ANN SEARLE v PETER KEAYES & ORS No NG 309 of 1994
Zamber lin J mee
8 '
21 November 1994 ECEIVED 14 DEC 1994
"EDERAL COURT OF
AUSTRALIA PRINCIPAL REGISTRY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. NG 309 of 1994 GENERAL DIVISION )
BETWEEN : BRONWYN ANN SEARLE Applicant AND : PETER KEAYES
First Respondent
RICHARD KEAYES Second Respondent
BRISALEBE AG LIMITED (ACN 060 401 827) Third Respondent
WSB (No 15) PTY LIMITED (ACN 055 949 016) Fifth Respondent
WSB (No 17) PTY LIMITED (ACN 058 901 170) Sixth Respondent
CORAM TAMBERLIN J PLACE : SYDNEY DATED 21 November 1994
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The Application
Application has been made this morning by Counsel appearing for the first and sixth respondents for the hearing of this matter which has been set down for the whole five days of this week, to be vacated and for an adjournment of the proceedings
to-a date to be fixed by the Court.
The grounds of the application are set out in an affidavit of
the first respondent filed in Court this morning.
Background
The matter is part heard before me having been the subject a previous hearing over 5 days in late September this year. The matter was set down at a directions hearing on 25 July 1994 to commence on 26 September 1994 with an estimate of two weeks
for hearing.
In the first week of the hearing, the first respondent appeared for himself and the sixth respondent and conducted the case. The first respondent is an accountant by profession and has been in practice for some years. The case involves claims for declarations, injunctions and other orders by the applicant in respect of a meat tenderness detection process in
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate