Strange v Turnbull; McKenzie v Turnbull

The case of Strange v Turnbull; McKenzie v Turnbull was heard before the Supreme Court of South Australia. The plaintiffs, Strange and McKenzie, sought an adjournment of a trial against the defendant, Turnbull, who was alleged to have committed acts of personal violence against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs argued that the trial should be postponed due to the absence of a key witness, who had been scheduled to travel from overseas but was unable to attend due to unforeseen circumstances. The defendant, Turnbull, opposed the adjournment, arguing that the plaintiffs had not exercised due diligence in securing the witness's attendance and that the adjournment would cause significant prejudice.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiffs' failure to secure the attendance of a key witness justified granting an adjournment of the trial. The court had to balance the plaintiffs' right to a fair trial, which included the ability to present their full case, against the defendant's right to a timely resolution of the proceedings. Additionally, the court needed to consider the principles of due diligence and whether the plaintiffs had taken reasonable steps to ensure the witness's attendance.

The court found that the plaintiffs had exercised due diligence in attempting to secure the witness's attendance, taking into account the nature of international travel and the unforeseeable circumstances that prevented the witness from attending. The court emphasised that the plaintiffs had acted promptly and reasonably in their efforts to secure the witness's presence. However, the court also recognised the defendant's right to a timely resolution and the potential prejudice caused by an adjournment. Ultimately, the court decided that the plaintiffs' right to a fair trial, including the ability to present their full case, outweighed the defendant's right to an immediate resolution in this instance. Consequently, the court granted the adjournment.