Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Kedem v Johnson Lawyers Legal Practice Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 433 Citation: Kedem v Johnson Lawyers Legal Practice Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 433
Parties: EINAV KEDEM v JOHNSON LAWYERS LEGAL PRACTICE PTY LTD
File number: SAD 329 of 2012
Judge: BESANKO J
Date of judgment: 6 May 2013
Date of hearing: 6 May 2013
Date of last submissions: 6 May 2013
Place: Adelaide
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 1
Counsel for the Appellant: The Appellant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr J James
Solicitor for the Respondent: Johnson Lawyers
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION SAD 329 of 2012
BETWEEN: EINAV KEDEM
Appellant
AND: JOHNSON LAWYERS LEGAL PRACTICE PTY LTD
Respondent
JUDGE: BESANKO J DATE OF ORDER: 6 MAY 2013 WHERE MADE: ADELAIDE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application of the appellant dated 15 April 2013 to adjourn the hearing is dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the respondent's costs of the application. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION SAD 329 of 2012
BETWEEN: EINAV KEDEM
Appellant
AND: JOHNSON LAWYERS LEGAL PRACTICE PTY LTD
Respondent
JUDGE: BESANKO J DATE: 6 MAY 2013 PLACE: ADELAIDE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The appellant's appeal from orders made by the Federal Magistrates Court (now the Federal Circuit Court of Australia) on 30 November 2012 is listed for hearing on Wednesday, 15 May 2013. Today, the appellant applies for an adjournment of the appeal. First, he relies on the fact that he has only recently put forward a letter from Robert Chrzaszcz & Associates dated 5 August 2005 which is "EK1" to the appellant's affidavit sworn on 1 May 2013. If this letter is relevant and admissible on the hearing of the appeal, and those are matters for the Appeal Court to decide and not for me, then the letter is available. Its annexure to the appellant's affidavit of 1 May 2013 provides no reason to adjourn the hearing of the appeal. Secondly, the appellant relies on an argument that he is awaiting documents from the Legal Practitioners Conduct Board. There is no sufficient evidence of this, or of the nature of the documents, or of their relevance to the proceeding, which it must be remembered, is an appeal. I see no reason to adjourn the hearing of the appeal and the appellant's interlocutory application dated 15 April 2013 is refused. I certify that the preceding one (1) numbered paragraph is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Besanko.
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