Electoral Commissioner of the Australian Electoral Commission v Laming [2022] FCA 1175

Federal Court of Australia

File number:	QUD 443 of 2021

Judgment of:	RANGIAH J

Date of judgment:	16 September 2022

Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for adjournment of proceedings by respondent – where matter part heard – where respondent terminated retainer of his lawyers after matter part heard – application for adjournment refused

Division:	General Division

Registry:	Queensland

National Practice Area:	Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights

Number of paragraphs:	6

Date of interlocutory hearing:	16 September 2022

Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr D Roche

Solicitor for the Applicant:	Australian Government Solicitor

Solicitor for the Respondent:	The Respondent was self-represented

ORDERS

		QUD 443 of 2021

BETWEEN:	ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER OF THE AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION Applicant
AND:	ANDREW LAMING Respondent

order made by:	RANGIAH J
DATE OF ORDER:	16 SEPTEMBER 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The respondent’s application for adjournment is refused.

2. The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the application for adjournment including the costs of today.

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(DELIVERED EX TEMPORE AND REVISED FROM TRANSCRIPT)

RANGIAH J:

1 The respondent, Dr Andrew Laming, has applied for an adjournment of the hearing in this matter. The hearing commenced on 7 September 2022. It was part-heard, and the remainder of the hearing was listed for 21 September 2022.

2 The respondent has since terminated the retainer of his lawyers and decided to represent himself. He has not provided an explanation for that decision. It was not apparently anything to do with the competence of his lawyers, who appeared to take points that could reasonably be taken.

3 The respondent contends that because of his decision to represent himself, he cannot adequately prepare for the hearing on 21 September 2022. He seeks an adjournment until the following week or later to allow him to prepare.

4 The respondent’s wound is self-inflicted. His decision to represent himself should not be visited upon the applicant, who has an interest in finalising the proceeding. It may be noted that the proceeding has already been delayed by other decisions made by the respondent as to its conduct, including by the respondent initially representing himself and then belatedly deciding to engage his former solicitors.

5 In addition, if an adjournment is granted, there will be prejudice to the administration of justice. The day set aside for the resumption of the hearing would be wasted and it would be necessary for the Court to find another date, which could then deprive another litigant of the opportunity of an early hearing.

6 In these circumstances, the respondent’s application for an adjournment will be refused.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Rangiah.

Associate:

Dated: 4 October 2022

Top