Freeman v Elmore Ltd

[2020] FCCA 2882

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FREEMAN v ELMORE LTD & ANOR [2020] FCCA 2882

Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for an adjournment refused.

Applicant: SEAN MICHAEL FREEMAN

First Respondent: ELMORE LTD

Second Respondent: DAVID JAMES MENDELAWITZ

File Number: PEG 294 of 2019

Judgment of: Judge Street

Hearing date: 16 October 2020

Date of Last Submission: 16 October 2020

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 16 October 2020

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr J Raftos via Microsoft Teams

Solicitors for the Applicant: MKI Legal

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr TJ Hammond via Microsoft Teams

Solicitors for the Respondents: MinterEllison

ORDERS

1. The application for an adjournment is refused.

2. The application in a case filed on 5 October 2020 is dismissed.

Date of orders: 16 October 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

PEG 294 of 2019

SEAN MICHAEL FREEMAN

Applicant

And

ELMORE LTD

First Respondent

DAVID JAMES MENDELAWITZ

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. These are proceedings that were commenced on 31 July 2019. Orders were made by this Court fixing the matter for hearing. Those orders are ones in respect of which there has been non-compliance by the applicant.

2. On 5 October 2020, a belated application was filed for an adjournment, supported by affidavit evidence, seeking to explain circumstances as to why the matter should be adjourned.

3. Reference was made to the fact that there is a further hearing date allocated by the Court next week. That hearing date is an allocation for the purpose of any outstanding matters in respect of the hearing of these proceedings. It was not a basis for the applicant to seek an adjournment of the substantive hearing date.

4. The applicant has not complied with the Court’s order in relation to the list of objections and has sought to file belated affidavit evidence. The Court does not accept that this is an appropriate approach in respect of the conduct of a matter for hearing. The Court is not satisfied that an adjournment is warranted in the interests of the administration of justice.

5. The application for an adjournment is refused. The application in a case filed on 5 October 2020 is dismissed.

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the transcript of the published oral reasons for judgment of Judge Street delivered in open Court on 16 October 2020 and the parties were sent a sealed copy of the Court’s orders.

Associate:

Date: 13 November 2020