Jeremy Jones v The Bible Believers* Church [2006] FCA 123 (21 February 2006)

Last Updated: 23 February 2006

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Jeremy Jones v The Bible Believers’ Church [2006] FCA 123

JEREMY JONES AND ON BEHALF OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL OF AUSTRALIAN JEWRY v THE BIBLE BELIEVERS’ CHURCH

NSD 768 OF 2005









CONTI J
21 FEBRUARY 2006
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 768 OF 2005

BETWEEN:	JEREMY JONES AND ON BEHALF OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL OF AUSTRALIAN JEWRY APPLICANT
AND:	THE BIBLE BELIEVERS' CHURCH RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	CONTI J
DATE OF ORDER:	21 FEBRUARY 2006
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application for an adjournment made by Anthony Grigor-Scott by letter dated 15 February 2006 be 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	NSD 768 OF 2005

BETWEEN:	JEREMY JONES AND ON BEHALF OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL OF AUSTRALIAN JEWRY APPLICANT
AND:	THE BIBLE BELIEVERS' CHURCH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	CONTI J
DATE:	21 FEBRUARY 2006
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1	This matter was partly heard on 20 September 2005, and was adjourned. The subsequent hearing date of 8 February 2006 was vacated at the request of both parties and the matter was stood over to 23 February 2006 for further directions.
2	On 20 February 2006, the Court received a letter from the respondent dated 15 February 2006, a copy of which is attached to these reasons.
3	There is no suggestion that this adjournment application has been notified to the applicant, accompanied by a request for his consent.
4	At the earlier hearing of the proceedings, Mr Grigor-Scott represented the respondent, and if I may say so, with conviction and vigour.
5	Given the time that has elapsed since the commencement of the proceedings and the subsequent first day’s hearing of the proceedings, I am unable to accept that the present belated application has sufficient merit. I appreciate that the purpose of the next hearing relates only to directions and for the purpose of fixing a time for the continuation of the final hearing.
6	The application is therefore refused. The applicant will be notified of course of the resumed hearing date, if he does not attend the pending directions hearing.

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

Associate:

Dated: 21 February 2006

Date of Judgment:

21 February 2006