FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Kedem v Johnson Lawyers Legal Practice Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 433
Citation: Kedem v Johnson Lawyers Legal Practice Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 433 Parties: EINAV KEDEM v JOHNSON LAWYERS LEGAL PRACTICE PTY LTD File number: SAD 329 of 2012 Judge: BESANKO J Date of judgment: 6 May 2013 Date of hearing: 6 May 2013 Date of last submissions: 6 May 2013 Place: Adelaide Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: No Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 1 Counsel for the Appellant: The Appellant appeared in person Counsel for the Respondent: Mr J James Solicitor for the Respondent: Johnson Lawyers
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
SAD 329 of 2012
BETWEEN: EINAV KEDEM
AppellantAND: JOHNSON LAWYERS LEGAL PRACTICE PTY LTD
Respondent
JUDGE:
BESANKO J
DATE OF ORDER:
6 MAY 2013
WHERE MADE:
ADELAIDE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application of the appellant dated 15 April 2013 to adjourn the hearing is dismissed.
2.The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the application.
Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
SAD 329 of 2012
BETWEEN: EINAV KEDEM
AppellantAND: JOHNSON LAWYERS LEGAL PRACTICE PTY LTD
Respondent
JUDGE:
BESANKO J
DATE:
6 MAY 2013
PLACE:
ADELAIDE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The appellant’s appeal from orders made by the Federal Magistrates Court (now the Federal Circuit Court of Australia) on 30 November 2012 is listed for hearing on Wednesday, 15 May 2013. Today, the appellant applies for an adjournment of the appeal. First, he relies on the fact that he has only recently put forward a letter from Robert Chrzaszcz & Associates dated 5 August 2005 which is “EK1” to the appellant’s affidavit sworn on 1 May 2013. If this letter is relevant and admissible on the hearing of the appeal, and those are matters for the Appeal Court to decide and not for me, then the letter is available. Its annexure to the appellant’s affidavit of 1 May 2013 provides no reason to adjourn the hearing of the appeal. Secondly, the appellant relies on an argument that he is awaiting documents from the Legal Practitioners Conduct Board. There is no sufficient evidence of this, or of the nature of the documents, or of their relevance to the proceeding, which it must be remembered, is an appeal. I see no reason to adjourn the hearing of the appeal and the appellant’s interlocutory application dated 15 April 2013 is refused.
I certify that the preceding one (1) numbered paragraph is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Besanko. Associate:
Dated: 10 May 2013
- AGLC
- Kedem v Johnson Lawyers Legal Practice Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 433
- Case
- [2013] FCA 433
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appellant had a sufficient basis to claim professional negligence against the respondent. The court had to assess whether the respondent's actions, or lack thereof, fell below the standard expected of a professional lawyer and if such actions resulted in damages to the appellant. This required a thorough examination of the relationship between the parties, the services provided by the respondent, and the impact of those services on the appellant's interests.
The court, in its reasoning, found that the appellant had not established a prima facie case of professional negligence against the respondent. The evidence presented did not sufficiently demonstrate that the respondent's actions were below the expected professional standard or that these actions caused any loss or damage to the appellant. As a result, the court dismissed the appellant's application and ordered that the appellant pay the respondent's costs associated with the application. This decision was grounded in the established principles of professional negligence and the specific circumstances of the case.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application of the appellant dated 15 April 2013 to adjourn the hearing is dismissed.
2. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the application.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.