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. Associate: Dated: 10 May 2013