AMA v CDK

The Australian Medical Association (AMA) sought to set aside judgment orders that had been made against them in proceedings involving the Commonwealth Department of Health (the Commonwealth), the Commonwealth Department of Human Services (DHS), and Clinical Laboratory Services (CL). The orders were sought to be set aside under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 667(2) or r 668, or in the exercise of the court's inherent jurisdiction. The AMA argued that the orders were obtained in their absence and by fraud, and that new facts had arisen that entitled them to have the orders set aside. The court considered the arguments and determined that the application was not made within a reasonable time and that there were no grounds to set aside the orders. The court held that the AMA was not absent from the proceedings as they were represented by counsel and solicitors, and that there was no fraud. The court also found that the "slip rule" did not apply and that no new facts had arisen that entitled the AMA to have the orders set aside.

The court dismissed the application and ordered the AMA to pay the costs of the second and fourth respondents and CL of and incidental to the application. The court held that the application was made with substantial delay and that the AMA had not established any grounds to set aside the orders. The court found that the AMA's argument that the orders were obtained in their absence was not well-founded as they were represented by counsel and solicitors. The court also held that there was no fraud and that the "slip rule" did not apply. The court further found that no new facts had arisen that entitled the AMA to have the orders set aside. The court exercised its discretion to award costs against the AMA.