Savage Resorts Pty Ltd v Maksymiuk (No 2)
[2015] QCATA 90
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Appeal Determined (QCA)
- Savage Resorts Pty Ltd v Maksymiuk (No 2)[2015] QCATA 90
- Add to List
Savage Resorts Pty Ltd v Maksymiuk (No 2)[2015] QCATA 90
Savage Resorts Pty Ltd v Maksymiuk (No 2)[2015] QCATA 90
CITATION: | Savage Resorts Pty Ltd v Maksymiuk (No 2) [2015] QCATA 90 |
PARTIES: | Savage Resorts Pty Ltd (Applicant/Appellant) v Richard Maksymiuk (Respondent) |
APPLICATION NUMBER: | APL498 -14 |
MATTER TYPE: | Appeals |
HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Judge Horneman-Wren SC, Acting President |
DELIVERED ON: | 18 June 2015 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: |
|
CATHWORDS: | APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – OTHER MATTERS – MINOR CIVIL DISPUTES – where related proceedings in Court of Appeal – where stay granted pending decision of Court of Appeal – where respondent seeks an adjournment of procedural requirements for preparation of these proceedings – where no utility in adjournment – where application for adjournment dismissed Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) |
APPEARANCES AND REPRESENTATION (if any): | |
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act). | |
REASONS FOR DECISION
- [1]On 11 May 2015 the respondent filed a document entitled “Application for Adjournments in 2 Tribunals and 1 Court” in which he sought “an adjournment of the procedural requirements for the preparation of these proceedings.” An adjournment to the proceedings would be of no utility and the application ought be refused.
- [2]As was noted by the President in his reasons of 12 June 2015 dismissing the respondent’s earlier application for an injunction,[1] the Tribunal had previously, by order of 19 March 2015, stayed the application for leave to appeal pending further decision of the Appeal Tribunal. The reasons of 12 June 2015 reveal that the stay application was granted pending a decision from the Court of Appeal in a related matter between Savage Resorts Pty Ltd and Mr Maksymiuk.[2] Given that the proceedings are presently stayed, there is no utility in granting an adjournment. The application is misconceived and, accordingly, the application is dismissed.[3]