Wilson v Alexander - [2003] FCA 240

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Wilson v Alexander [2003] FCA 240
PAUL WILSON v CHARLES ALEXANDER (PARTNER OF MINTER ELLISON)
N 50 OF 2002
JACOBSON J
11 MARCH 2003
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 50 of 2002

BETWEEN:

PAUL WILSON
APPLICANT

AND:

CHARLES ALEXANDER
(PARTNER OF MINTER ELLISON)
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

JACOBSON J

DATE OF ORDER:

11 MARCH 2003

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application for an adjournment is refused.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 50 of 2002

BETWEEN:

PAUL WILSON
APPLICANT

AND:

CHARLES ALEXANDER
(PARTNER OF MINTER ELLISON)
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

JACOBSON J

DATE:

11 MARCH 2003

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This matter is part heard before me. It was adjourned on Friday, 8 November 2002 to resume today. The matter has been fixed for a further 3 days. I have allowed what seems to me to be more time than might otherwise be necessary in order to ensure that the case is completed within the allocated time.
When the matter was called on for hearing this morning, Mr Wilson informed me from the bar table that he wishes to have an adjournment in order to pursue an application for legal aid. I am told by Mr Michael Green of counsel for the respondents that this was also the first notice to him of any such application.
The request to legal aid for assistance was made in a letter which has not been tendered in evidence. Mr Wilson informs me that the application letter was dated 24 February 2003.
On 5 March 2003 the Legal Aid Commission wrote to Mr Wilson refusing his application for legal aid.
I think it is convenient that I set out for the purposes of the record the full text of the letter as follows:
“Dear Mr Wilson
Refusal of Legal Aid Application
Matter Other Matters
Court Federal Court
Representative
Your application for legal aid has been carefully considered and has been refused under section 34(1) of the Legal Aid Commission Act 1979 because:
It does not meet the priorities and guidelines set by the Commonwealth for legal aid for civil matters arising under Commonwealth laws.
Aid is available, subject to a means test, merit test, and guidelines, for original proceedings in the Federal Court or for appeals in the Full Court of the Federal Court and the High Court where it is considered that there are strong prospects of substantial benefit to be gained by the applicant.
The Commission is not satisfied that these requirements are met in this case.
Please quote the Commission’s file number on all correspondence.
Appeal Rights
Section 56 of the Act provides that you may appeal to the Legal Aid Review Committee against the decision to refuse legal aid.
This right of appeal does not apply to some specific reasons for refusal. If your…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Wilson v Alexander

Details

AGLC: Wilson v Alexander [2003] FCA 240
Case: [2003] FCA 240
Decision Date: 11 MARCH 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an application by the plaintiff, Wilson, against the defendant, Alexander, for an adjournment of the hearing date. The nature of the dispute was that the plaintiff sought to have a hearing date postponed due to alleged unforeseen circumstances. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff's reasons for seeking an adjournment were sufficient to warrant a change to the scheduled hearing date. The court was required to assess the urgency and merit of the plaintiff's application.

The court considered the evidence and submissions presented by both parties. The plaintiff argued that the delay would allow for the gathering of additional evidence and preparation of their case. However, the court found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that the adjournment was necessary or that it would lead to a more just outcome. The court also noted that there had been significant delays already and that the defendant would be prejudiced by a further postponement. Based on these considerations, the court held that the application for an adjournment should be refused. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to scheduled hearing dates to ensure the efficient administration of justice.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an adjournment. The case will proceed as scheduled, and both parties must prepare for the hearing on the original date. The court's decision ensures that the legal process is not unduly prolonged and that the rights of the defendant are protected.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for an adjournment is refused.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

JACOBSON J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: JACOBSON J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 50 of 2002

BETWEEN:	PAUL WILSON APPLICANT
AND:	CHARLES ALEXANDER (PARTNER OF MINTER ELLISON) RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	JACOBSON J
DATE OF ORDER:	11 MARCH 2003
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

JUDGE:	JACOBSON J
DATE:	11 MARCH 2003
PLACE:	SYDNEY