FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Dudzinski v Kellow [2002] FCA 1364 WALDEMAR DUDZINSKI v AYNSLEY KELLOWROY RICKSON, ERROL STOCK, BILL HOGARTH, CORDIA CHU, KEES HULSMAN, LYN HOLMAN, COLIN McANDREW, JOHN SCOTT, GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY Q 91 OF 2002 KIEFEL J 31 OCTOBER 2002 BRISBANE IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY Q91 OF 2002 BETWEEN: WALDEMAR DUDZINSKI APPLICANT AND: AYNSLEY KELLOW FIRST RESPONDENT ROY RICKSON SECOND RESPONDENT ERROL STOCK THIRD RESPONDENT BILL HOGARTH FOURTH RESPONDENT CORDIA CHU FIFTH RESPONDENT KEES HULSMAN SIXTH RESPONDENT LYN HOLMAN SEVENTH RESPONDENT COLIN McANDREW EIGHTH RESPONDENT JOHN SCOTT NINTH RESPONDENT GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY TENTH RESPONDENT JUDGE: KIEFEL J DATE OF ORDER: 31 OCTOBER 2002 WHERE MADE: BRISBANE THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application for an adjournment of the appeal to the Full Court be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs of this motion. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY Q91 OF 2002 BETWEEN: WALDEMAR DUDZINSKI APPLICANT AND: AYNSLEY KELLOW FIRST RESPONDENT ROY RICKSON SECOND RESPONDENT ERROL STOCK THIRD RESPONDENT BILL HOGARTH FOURTH RESPONDENT CORDIA CHU FIFTH RESPONDENT KEES HULSMAN SIXTH RESPONDENT LYN HOLMAN SEVENTH RESPONDENT COLIN McANDREW EIGHTH RESPONDENT JOHN SCOTT NINTH RESPONDENT GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY TENTH RESPONDENT JUDGE: KIEFEL J DATE: 31 OCTOBER 2002 PLACE: BRISBANE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT EX TEMPORE 1 The fact that Mr Dudzinski wishes to pursue a multiplicity of proceedings means, no doubt, that he will have to establish his own system of priorities. However, it does not seem to me that the other party to the appeal should be subject to his preferences about which litigation he wishes to precede others and the order in which he wishes them to be undertaken. It is necessary for him to show that he will be disadvantaged. He has not done so. The appeal here was lodged in June and he was told at a callover in July that there was no likelihood of an adjournment. In any event, there is no sufficient explanation given to me as to why he cannot prepare the matter, even allowing for some of the appeals which he says he wants to prepare. There is no other hearing which will conflict with the appeal. I do not accept that he was taken by surprise in any way and such as would affect him in the preparation of his appeal. The application for adjournment is therefore refused. 2 I order that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of this motion. I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Kiefel. Associate: Dated: 31 October 2002 For the Applicant: In Person Counsel for the Respondent: Ms S Brown Solicitor for the Respondent: Minter Ellison Date of Hearing: 31 October 2002 Date of Judgment: 31 October 2002