FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Kedem v Johnson Lawyers Legal Practice Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 433

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The application of the appellant dated 15 April 2013 to adjourn the hearing is dismissed.

2.    The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the application.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1    The appellant’s appeal from orders made by the Federal Magistrates Court (now the Federal Circuit Court of Australia) on 30 November 2012 is listed for hearing on Wednesday, 15 May 2013. Today, the appellant applies for an adjournment of the appeal. First, he relies on the fact that he has only recently put forward a letter from Robert Chrzaszcz & Associates dated 5 August 2005 which is “EK1” to the appellant’s affidavit sworn on 1 May 2013. If this letter is relevant and admissible on the hearing of the appeal, and those are matters for the Appeal Court to decide and not for me, then the letter is available. Its annexure to the appellant’s affidavit of 1 May 2013 provides no reason to adjourn the hearing of the appeal. Secondly, the appellant relies on an argument that he is awaiting documents from the Legal Practitioners Conduct Board. There is no sufficient evidence of this, or of the nature of the documents, or of their relevance to the proceeding, which it must be remembered, is an appeal. I see no reason to adjourn the hearing of the appeal and the appellant’s interlocutory application dated 15 April 2013 is refused.

Associate:

Dated:    10 May 2013