Wilkinson v Bonnici

In the Federal Circuit Court, the plaintiff sought to vacate the hearing dates of a family provision claim due to the illness of the counsel. The plaintiff's counsel had contracted RSV less than two business days before a two-day hearing, and a discussion with a doctor indicated that he would be unwell for at least 3-4 days. The counsel had been involved in the matter from its inception, acting on a conditional fee basis, and the subject matter, though not overly complex, was strongly contested. One of the defendants was the deceased's elderly widow with significant health issues. The experienced counsel for the plaintiff confirmed that his health situation and inability to discharge his duties had not changed the day before the scheduled hearing. The court had to decide whether the hearing dates should be vacated based on the counsel's illness.

The court considered the discretion of the judge in urgent circumstances to act upon representations from the bar table. The judge noted that the counsel's illness was genuine, and his inability to participate in the hearing was due to his health condition. The court acknowledged the counsel's involvement in the matter for two years and the strong contestation of the subject matter. The judge also considered the health issues of one of the defendants, the deceased's elderly widow. The court rejected the defendants' counsel's submission that the plaintiff's counsel should simply "soldier on," and the hearing dates were vacated.

The court exercised its discretion in favour of the plaintiff, taking into account the urgency of the situation and the genuine illness of the counsel. The court recognised the importance of the counsel's involvement in the matter and the strongly contested nature of the subject matter. The judge also considered the health issues of one of the defendants and the need for a fair and just outcome in the case. The court's decision to vacate the hearing dates demonstrated the importance of the judge's discretion in urgent circumstances and the need to balance the interests of all parties involved.

The final orders of the court were to vacate the hearing dates of the family provision claim. The court recognised the genuine illness of the plaintiff's counsel and the need for a fair and just outcome in the case. The judge exercised its discretion in favour of the plaintiff, taking into account the urgency of the situation and the importance of the counsel's involvement in the matter. The court also considered the health issues of one of the defendants and the strongly contested nature of the subject matter. The final orders ensured that the matter could proceed in a fair and just manner, with all parties having the opportunity to be heard.