Alhalek v Quintiliani trading as Kells Lawyers

The applicant sought an adjournment of the hearing of an appeal in the Federal Court of Australia. The appeal was initially scheduled for hearing, but the applicant sought to adjourn it on the morning of the hearing due to the unavailability of counsel. This was the second occasion on which the appeal was sought to be adjourned. The application for adjournment was made without evidence to support the unavailability of counsel, and there was also a failure to comply with obligations under section 37N of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).

The court had to decide whether to grant the application for an adjournment, considering the lack of evidence to support the counsel's unavailability and the non-compliance with statutory obligations. The court also had to consider the principles of fairness and justice in the administration of the law. The court found that the application was not supported by evidence and that the applicant had not complied with the statutory obligations, which included providing notice of the application to the other party. The court held that the application for adjournment should be dismissed, and the costs of the application should be costs in the cause.

The court dismissed the application for adjournment and ordered that the costs of the application be costs in the cause. The court emphasised the importance of complying with statutory obligations and the need for evidence to support applications for adjournment. The court also noted that the administration of justice requires that hearings proceed as scheduled unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary. The orders of the court were made pursuant to Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.