Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Walsh v The Greater Metropolitan Cemeteries Trust [2014] FCA 383 Citation: Walsh v The Greater Metropolitan Cemeteries Trust [2014] FCA 383
Parties: MELINDA WALSH v THE GREATER METROPOLITAN CEMETERIES TRUST
File number: VID 674 of 2013
Judge: BROMBERG J
Date of judgment: 8 April 2014
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – whether hearing of trial should be vacated by reason of applicant's unpreparedness – lack of explanation, prejudice to respondent and case management considerations discussed – application rejected.
Legislation: Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 340(1), 570(1)
Cases cited: Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175
Date of hearing: 8 April 2014
Place: Melbourne
Division: FAIR WORK DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 12
Counsel for the Applicant: Ms R Sion
Solicitor for the Applicant: Spicer Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr T Donaghey
Solicitor for the Respondent: Meerkin & Apel
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY FAIR WORK DIVISION VID 674 of 2013
BETWEEN: MELINDA WALSH
Applicant
AND: THE GREATER METROPOLITAN CEMETERIES TRUST
Respondent
JUDGE: BROMBERG J DATE OF ORDER: 8 APRIL 2014 WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The applicant's application for an adjournment be dismissed. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY FAIR WORK DIVISION VID 674 of 2013
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