Dranichnikov v Centrelink

[2002] FCA 1362

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Dranichnikov v Centrelink [2002] FCA 1362

SERGEY DRANICHNIKOV AND OLGA DRANICHNIKOV v CENTRELINK AND BRIAN McKENNA in his capacity as a Centrelink Recovery Officer

Q 148 OF 2002

DOWSETT J
25 OCTOBER 2002
BRISBANE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	Q 148 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

SERGEY DRANICHNIKOV
FIRST APPLICANT

OLGA DRANICHNIKOV
SECOND APPLICANT

AND:

CENTRELINK
FIRST RESPONDENT

BRIAN McKENNA in his capacity as a Centrelink Recovery Officer
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

DOWSETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

25 OCTOBER 2002

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The application for an adjournment is refused.

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	Q 148 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

SERGEY DRANICHNIKOV
FIRST APPLICANT

OLGA DRANICHNIKOV
SECOND APPLICANT

AND:

CENTRELINK
FIRST RESPONDENT

BRIAN McKENNA in his capacity as a Centrelink Recovery Officer
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	DOWSETT J
DATE:	25 OCTOBER 2002
PLACE:	BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. I am not going to allow the adjournment.  The applicants have known since 2 October that the matter would come on today.  They have had discovery.  Although there are a number of documents on the list, Mrs Dranichnikov conceded in the course of the argument that most of them were documents already in her possession.  Indeed, that is obvious from the affidavit.  Her real complaint and that of her husband is of a purely technical kind.  They complain that the list was not verified by affidavit and filed within the time set by my directions.  The list was verified by affidavit.  It was provided to them on 23 October but not filed until a few days later.  That may constitute technical non-compliance with my order, but it is of no significance for present purposes. 

2. They also complain that since 2 October, they have been involved in hearings of various notices of motion.  That was entirely a matter of their own making.  I can see no reason why, having regard to the nature of this matter, it could not have been prepared between 2 October and now, particularly as they must have had some idea about their case prior to commencing the proceedings.  The application for an adjournment is refused.

I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dowsett.

Associate:

Dated:            5 November 2002

The First Applicant appeared in person.
The Second Applicant appeared in person.
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Minter Ellison
Date of Hearing:	25 October 2002
Date of Judgment:	25 October 2002