FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Dudzinski v Kellow [2002] FCA 1364
WALDEMAR DUDZINSKI v AYNSLEY KELLOWROY RICKSON, ERROL STOCK, BILL HOGARTH, CORDIA CHU, KEES HULSMAN, LYN HOLMAN, COLIN McANDREW, JOHN SCOTT, GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY
Q 91 OF 2002
KIEFEL J
31 OCTOBER 2002
BRISBANE
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY |
Q91 OF 2002 |
|
BETWEEN: |
WALDEMAR DUDZINSKI APPLICANT
|
|
AND: |
AYNSLEY KELLOW FIRST RESPONDENT
ROY RICKSON SECOND RESPONDENT
ERROL STOCK THIRD RESPONDENT
BILL HOGARTH FOURTH RESPONDENT
CORDIA CHU FIFTH RESPONDENT
KEES HULSMAN SIXTH RESPONDENT
LYN HOLMAN SEVENTH RESPONDENT
COLIN McANDREW EIGHTH RESPONDENT
JOHN SCOTT NINTH RESPONDENT
GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY TENTH RESPONDENT
|
|
KIEFEL J |
|
|
DATE OF ORDER: |
31 OCTOBER 2002 |
|
WHERE MADE: |
BRISBANE |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application for an adjournment of the appeal to the Full Court be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of this motion.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY |
Q91 OF 2002 |
|
BETWEEN: |
APPLICANT
|
|
AND: |
AYNSLEY KELLOW FIRST RESPONDENT
ROY RICKSON SECOND RESPONDENT
ERROL STOCK THIRD RESPONDENT
BILL HOGARTH FOURTH RESPONDENT
CORDIA CHU FIFTH RESPONDENT
KEES HULSMAN SIXTH RESPONDENT
LYN HOLMAN SEVENTH RESPONDENT
COLIN McANDREW EIGHTH RESPONDENT
JOHN SCOTT NINTH RESPONDENT
TENTH RESPONDENT
|
|
JUDGE: |
KIEFEL J |
|
DATE: |
|
|
PLACE: |
BRISBANE |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
EX TEMPORE
1 The fact that Mr Dudzinski wishes to pursue a multiplicity of proceedings means, no doubt, that he will have to establish his own system of priorities. However, it does not seem to me that the other party to the appeal should be subject to his preferences about which litigation he wishes to precede others and the order in which he wishes them to be undertaken. It is necessary for him to show that he will be disadvantaged. He has not done so. The appeal here was lodged in June and he was told at a callover in July that there was no likelihood of an adjournment. In any event, there is no sufficient explanation given to me as to why he cannot prepare the matter, even allowing for some of the appeals which he says he wants to prepare. There is no other hearing which will conflict with the appeal. I do not accept that he was taken by surprise in any way and such as would affect him in the preparation of his appeal. The application for adjournment is therefore refused.
2 I order that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of this motion.
|
I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Kiefel. |
Associate:
Dated: 31 October 2002
|
For the Applicant: |
In Person |
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent: |
Ms S Brown |
|
|
|
|
Solicitor for the Respondent: |
Minter Ellison |
|
|
|
|
Date of Hearing: |
31 October 2002 |
|
|
|
|
Date of Judgment: |
31 October 2002 |
