Baker v Telstra Corporation Limited - [2009] FCA 531

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Baker v Telstra Corporation Limited [2009] FCA 531
CHRISTOPHER EDWARD BAKER v TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED and COMCARE
QUD 23 of 2009
SPENDER ACJ
7 MAY 2009
BRISBANE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

QUD 23 of 2009

ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED BY DEPUTY PRESIDENT HACK AND MEMBER MORLEY

BETWEEN:
CHRISTOPHER EDWARD BAKER
Applicant

AND:
TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED
First Respondent

COMCARE
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

SPENDER ACJ

DATE OF ORDER:

7 MAY 2009

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1The application dated 17 April 2009 to appeal from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal be dismissed pursuant to s 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).

2The applicant pay to the first respondent the costs of the Motion filed by it on 27 April 2009 and the costs of the principal proceeding, to be taxed if not agreed.

3The applicant pay to the second respondent the costs of the Motion filed by it on 29 April 2009 and the costs of the principal proceeding, to be taxed if not agreed.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court’s website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

QUD 23 of 2009

ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED BY DEPUTY PRESIDENT HACK AND MEMBER MORLEY

BETWEEN:
CHRISTOPHER EDWARD BAKER
Applicant

AND:
TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED
First Respondent

COMCARE
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

SPENDER ACJ

DATE:

7 MAY 2009

PLACE:

BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

There are before the Court two Notices of Motion. The first was filed by the first respondent on 27 April 2009 seeking orders that the application dated 17 April 2009 to appeal from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) be dismissed pursuant to s 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (the FCA Act). A similar affidavit was filed by the second respondent on 29 April 2009.
The first respondent’s Motion was supported by an affidavit of Suzanne Louise Dole filed on 27 April 2009, and the second respondent’s Motion was supported by the affidavit of Anthony Giugni, filed on 29 April 2007.
Mr Baker, on 5 May 2009, filed an affidavit in response. That affidavit has annexed to it a number of documents, including witness statements and doctors’ reports, some of which appear to have been exhibits in the original hearing in the AAT. The bundle of documents commences with a letter from Mr Baker which begins:
Due to the severely restricted timeframe for lodgement and serving of documents and vague recollection of evidence and reports presented at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal hearing please find enclosed response.
And later he says:
Given until 4.30 pm Tuesday 5/5/09 to lodge and serve documents with a public holiday in the middle. It seems a deliberate attempt to restrict a more detailed and legal response.
He then lists…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Baker v Telstra Corporation Limited and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2009] FCA 531
Decision Date: 7 May 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Baker brought an application to appeal against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The application was dismissed by the Federal Court of Australia. The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of section 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), which pertains to the dismissal of an appeal due to the absence of a sufficient arguable case on appeal. The court examined the merits of Baker's application to determine whether it contained sufficient grounds to warrant an appeal to the court. The primary focus was on whether the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was legally flawed or whether the grounds of appeal were sufficiently robust to merit further judicial review.

The court determined that the application did not present a sufficient arguable case on appeal. It found that the grounds of appeal were insufficiently developed and lacked merit. The court held that the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was not legally flawed to the extent that it warranted further judicial scrutiny. As a result, the application was dismissed in accordance with section 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act. The court emphasised the need for a more comprehensive and legally sound application to successfully appeal a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

In addition to dismissing the application, the court ordered Baker to pay costs to both respondents. The costs were to cover the expenses associated with the motion filed by each respondent and the costs of the principal proceeding. The exact amount of these costs was to be determined and taxed if the parties could not agree on the amount. This decision underscores the importance of ensuring that applications for appeal are well-founded and adequately supported by law, to avoid unnecessary litigation and the imposition of costs on the unsuccessful party.

Orders

Orders of the court

1 The application dated 17 April 2009 to appeal from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal be dismissed pursuant to s 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).

2 The applicant pay to the first respondent the costs of the Motion filed by it on 27 April 2009 and the costs of the principal proceeding, to be taxed if not agreed.

3 The applicant pay to the second respondent the costs of the Motion filed by it on 29 April 2009 and the costs of the principal proceeding, to be taxed if not agreed.

Note:

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

SPENDER ACJ

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: SPENDER ACJ

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	QUD 23 of 2009

JUDGE:	SPENDER ACJ
DATE OF ORDER:	7 MAY 2009
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE

JUDGE:	SPENDER ACJ
DATE:	7 MAY 2009
PLACE:	BRISBANE