Kedem v Johnson Lawyers Legal Practice Pty Ltd

[2013] FCA 433

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 Appellant
AND:	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 Appellant
AND:	JOHNSON LAWYERS LEGAL PRACTICE PTY LTD Respondent

JUDGE:	BESANKO J
DATE:	6 MAY 2013
PLACE:	ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. 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