Kowalski v Bourne (No.3)
[2010] FMCA 678
•24 August 2010
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| KOWALSKI v BOURNE (No.3) | [2010] FMCA 678 |
| TRADE PRACTICES – Application for an adjournment of the hearing – application refused. |
| Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) Fair Trading Act 1987 (SA) |
| Applicant: | KAZIMIR KOWALSKI |
| Respondent: | TIM BOURNE |
| File Number: | ADG 95 of 2010 |
| Judgment of: | Lindsay FM |
| Hearing date: | 24 August 2010 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 24 August 2010 |
| Delivered at: | Adelaide |
| Delivered on: | 24 August 2010 |
REPRESENTATION
| The Applicant: | In Person |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr Camatta |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Camatta Lempens Lawyers Pty Ltd |
ORDERS
(a)The application for an adjournment of the proceedings is refused.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT ADELAIDE |
ADG 95 of 2010
| KAZIMIR KOWALSKI |
Applicant
And
| TIM BOURNE |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Mr Kowalski was midway through making some opening remarks in response to my request for same when we adjourned. After the adjournment he has indicated to me that on 10 August 2010 he made a request (presumably in the Supreme Court) for Mr Bourne’s costs to be taxed. I say Mr Bourne’s costs – these are the costs he told me about in answer to my questions earlier this morning and the proceedings in respect of which the costs were incurred are set out in a number of documents that are annexed to Mr Kowalski’s affidavit of 28 April 2010 filed in support of the application.
I accept that there is no time limit on the taxation of costs. I accept as a possibility that the costs will be taxed for a lesser amount than
Mr Bourne obtained judgment and Mr Kowalski paid him. I accept all of those matters. What I cannot apprehend and what Mr Kowalski was unable to identify for me was any way in which the outcome of that taxation would have any bearing upon whether or not Mr Bourne committed a breach of the Trade Practices Act on 26 April in the manner set out in the application. I am unable to apprehend myself and Mr Kowalski was unable to put to me any way in which the adjournment of the proceedings to await the outcome of the taxation would have any material impact upon the course of these proceedings. The application for an adjournment is refused.
I certify that the preceding two (2) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Lindsay FM
Date: 1 September 2010
0
2