Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd v Patial
[2024] FedCFamC2G 268
•12 March 2024
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd v Patial [2024] FedCFamC2G 268
File number(s): SYG 969 of 2023 Judgment of: JUDGE D HUMPHREYS Date of judgment: 12 March 2024 Catchwords: FAIR WORK – Application for an adjournment due to medical reasons – Medical certificate provided – Where the medical certificate did not indicate they were unfit to attend Court – application refused Cases cited: MZZGY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 448 Division: Division 2 General Federal Law Number of paragraphs: 5 Date of last submission/s: 12 March 2024 Date of hearing: 12 March 2024 Place: Parramatta Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Misra Solicitor for the Applicant: Kailash Lawyers Counsel for the Respondent: In person ORDERS
SYG 969 of 2023
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: KAILASH LAWYERS PTY LTD T/A KAILASH LAWYERS & CONSULTANTS
Applicant
AND: PRATEEK PATIAL
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE D HUMPHREYS
DATE OF ORDER:
12 MARCH 2024
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application for an adjournment is refused.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(As revised from the transcript)JUDGE D HUMPHREYS
APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT
This is an adjournment application by Mr Patial based on the medical certificate that was provided to the Court. Mr Patial has now attended the Court. Before the Court is a medical certificate from Ryde Hospital that simply indicates that Mr Patial presented there yesterday for chest pain. In terms of the diagnosis, no cardiac cause was found, and Mr Patial was released without any diagnosis. He was released without any medication. He was not treated in any way.
Yesterday, the applicant was specifically asked for a medical certificate that indicated whether or not he was unfit to attend Court. The medical certificate provided does not indicate that he is unfit to attend court, and in those circumstances, the Court does not accept the medical certificate as being such that the matter should be adjourned.
In MZZGY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 448 at [13] Davies J said:
The documents are wholly inadequate to support an adjournment application. The certificate did not state the nature of the appellant’s condition, nor explain why it would prevent him from attending and participating effectively in the court hearing and the fact that some tablets were prescribed was insufficient reason to be satisfied the applicant could not attend and participate effectively in the court hearing. Furthermore, wholly unexplained was why it was left until late the day before to seek the adjournment. It is reasonable to infer that the late notice was deliberate and intended to bring about the outcome of an adjournment by the short notice. I accordingly refused the adjournment application and proceeded to hear the appeal on its merits.
The Court is not satisfied that, based on the medical certificate that simply says that the applicant will be unfit for work/school/usual activities from 11.3.24 to 13.3.24 that I should grant an adjournment. This matter is of very short compass. Mr Patial has had plenty of time to prepare for the matter prior to today.
In the Court’s view, the adjournment application is refused.
I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the ex-tempore Reasons for Judgment of Judge D Humphreys. Associate:
Dated: 21 March 2024