The Family Company Pty Ltd v Crowley

The Family Company Pty Ltd sought an adjournment of the trial in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia to allow for new counsel to be engaged. The company had been represented by counsel for approximately 11 months, but the relationship between the solicitor and counsel deteriorated. The company's solicitor was unable to obtain advice on the evidence from the counsel, and the counsel was only available for a limited period. The solicitor underestimated the counsel's availability and failed to seek replacement counsel promptly. The application for an adjournment was made on the basis that the brief had been delivered to the counsel on the assumption that he would be available for the entire trial period.

The legal issues before the court were whether the company's failure to seek replacement counsel promptly was an underestimate of the counsel's availability and whether this amounted to a sufficient ground for granting an adjournment. The court considered whether the company's failure to obtain advice on the evidence from the counsel and the solicitor's underestimate of the counsel's availability were sufficient grounds for granting an adjournment. The court also considered whether the company's failure to seek replacement counsel promptly was a sufficient ground for granting an adjournment.

The court found that the company's failure to seek replacement counsel promptly was not a sufficient ground for granting an adjournment. The court held that the company had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that warranted an adjournment. The court held that the company's failure to obtain advice on the evidence from the counsel and the solicitor's underestimate of the counsel's availability were not sufficient grounds for granting an adjournment. The court held that the company had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that warranted an adjournment. The court also held that the company's failure to seek replacement counsel promptly was not a sufficient ground for granting an adjournment.

The application for an adjournment was dismissed. The court held that the company had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that warranted an adjournment. The court held that the company's failure to obtain advice on the evidence from the counsel and the solicitor's underestimate of the counsel's availability were not sufficient grounds for granting an adjournment. The court also held that the company's failure to seek replacement counsel promptly was not a sufficient ground for granting an adjournment.