Sipad Holding & Anor v Popovic, Nikola & Ors [1995] FCA 895

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. NG3192 of 1995 GENERAL DIVISION ) IN THE MATTER OF SIDEX AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED (RECEIVER AND MANAGER APPOINTED) (A.C.N. 000 828 606) BETWEEN:SIPAD HOLDING d.d.p.o. First Applicant PERO VLADIC Second Applicant AND: NIKOLA POPOVIC First Respondent DRAGAN KARAC Second Respondent MILAN JOVICIC Third Respondent JOSEPH JOHN GILLES Fourth Respondent AUSTRALIA FURNITURE PTY LIMITED Fifth Respondent SIDEX AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED (RECEIVER AND MANAGER APPOINTED) Sixth Respondent SIPAD EXPORT IMPORT d.d.p.o. Seventh Respondent CORAM: Lehane J PLACE: Sydney DATE: 10 October 1995 EXTEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT LEHANE J: The first, second and third respondents have sought an adjournment of this matter for what amounts to an indefinite period but which may perhaps, it has been suggested, be six to eight months. The grounds upon which they put their application are in broad terms the suggested injustice that will arise for them if the matter proceeds to a hearing now. That injustice, it is said, arises from several factors. One is that those respondents are now unrepresented and are in the difficult position of having, without the benefit of legal advice or assistance, to conduct on their own what must be conceded to be difficult and complex proceedings. A second ground giving rise to the alleged injustice is said to be that the continuation of hostilities in the former Yugoslavia makes it impossible for those respondents to obtain either, I think, the information or the funds that they require in order to conduct the case properly. The court begins I think, in a case like this, with a strong predisposition to grant an adjournment to a party who is suddenly left without legal representation to fight a difficult case on his own. In this case, however, Mr Douglas has argued strongly that there are grounds which ought to lead me to the conclusion that no adjournment should be granted and indeed I have referred to matters during the course of discussion this morning which might suggest that this is a case where it would not, in the interests of justice, be convenient or proper to grant an adjournment.