Dudzinski v Kellow

Case •

[2002] FCA 1364

•

31 OCTOBER 2002

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Dudzinski v Kellow [2002] FCA 1364

WALDEMAR DUDZINSKI v AYNSLEY KELLOW ROY RICKSON, ERROL STOCK, BILL HOGARTH, CORDIA CHU, KEES HULSMAN, LYN HOLMAN, COLIN McANDREW, JOHN SCOTT, GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY

Q 91 OF 2002

KIEFEL J
31 OCTOBER 2002
BRISBANE


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

Q91 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

WALDEMAR DUDZINSKI
APPLICANT

AND:

AYNSLEY KELLOW
FIRST RESPONDENT

ROY RICKSON
SECOND RESPONDENT

ERROL STOCK
THIRD RESPONDENT

BILL HOGARTH
FOURTH RESPONDENT

CORDIA CHU
FIFTH RESPONDENT

KEES HULSMAN
SIXTH RESPONDENT

LYN HOLMAN
SEVENTH RESPONDENT

COLIN McANDREW
EIGHTH RESPONDENT

JOHN SCOTT
NINTH RESPONDENT

GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY
TENTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

KIEFEL J

DATE OF ORDER:

31 OCTOBER 2002

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The application for an adjournment of the appeal to the Full Court be dismissed.

2.        The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of this motion.

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

Q91 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

WALDEMAR DUDZINSKI
APPLICANT

AND:

AYNSLEY KELLOW
FIRST RESPONDENT

ROY RICKSON
SECOND RESPONDENT

ERROL STOCK
THIRD RESPONDENT

BILL HOGARTH
FOURTH RESPONDENT

CORDIA CHU
FIFTH RESPONDENT

KEES HULSMAN
SIXTH RESPONDENT

LYN HOLMAN
SEVENTH RESPONDENT

COLIN McANDREW
EIGHTH RESPONDENT

JOHN SCOTT
NINTH RESPONDENT

GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY
TENTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

KIEFEL J

DATE:

31 OCTOBER 2002

PLACE:

BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
EX TEMPORE

  1. The fact that Mr Dudzinski wishes to pursue a multiplicity of proceedings means, no doubt, that he will have to establish his own system of priorities.  However, it does not seem to me that the other party to the appeal should be subject to his preferences about which litigation he wishes to precede others and the order in which he wishes them to be undertaken.  It is necessary for him to show that he will be disadvantaged.  He has not done so.  The appeal here was lodged in June and he was told at a callover in July that there was no likelihood of an adjournment.  In any event, there is no sufficient explanation given to me as to why he cannot prepare the matter, even allowing for some of the appeals which he says he wants to prepare.  There is no other hearing which will conflict with the appeal.  I do not accept that he was taken by surprise in any way and such as would affect him in the preparation of his appeal.  The application for adjournment is therefore refused.

  2. I order that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of this motion.

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

Associate:

Dated:            31 October 2002

For the Applicant: In Person
Counsel for the Respondent: Ms S Brown
Solicitor for the Respondent: Minter Ellison
Date of Hearing: 31 October 2002
Date of Judgment: 31 October 2002
Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0