Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Martin v Norton Rose Fulbright Australia (No 8) [2020] FCA 274 File numbers: NSD 1610 of 2016 SAD 49 of 2017
Judge: KERR J
Date of judgment: 2 March 2020
Date of publication of reasons: 5 March 2020
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for adjournment of trial on basis of foreshadowed application to High Court of Australia seeking constitutional writs of prohibition and certiorari quashing interlocutory orders made by trial judge and restraining trial judge from hearing matter – no evidence adduced of steps taken to commence foreshadowed proceedings – no steps taken to seek leave to appeal from interlocutory judgment of trial judge – little prospect of success in foreshadowed proceedings – no undue prejudice if foreshadowed proceedings successful – application brought on eve of trial – application dismissed
Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 35.01, 35.13, 35.14
Cases cited: Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australia National University [2009] HCA 27; 239 CLR 175 Geographical Indications Committee v The Honourable Justice O'Connor [2000] FCA 1877 JJ Richards & Sons Pty Ltd v Fair Work Australia [2012] FCAFC 53; 201 FCR 297 Martin v Norton Rose Fulbright Australia (No 7) [2020] FCA 5
Date of hearing: 2 March 2020
Registry: Victoria
Division: Fair Work Division
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