Bartlett, W.T. v Weir, C.P.

[1993] FCA 217

JUDGMENT No. ...a o!..z ... J !J.%..

IN TIIE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	) )
TASMANIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	) No. TG 7 of 1992
)
GENERAL DIVJSLN	)
BETWEEN:

WILLIAM THOMAS BARTLETT

Applicant

and

CLARE PATRICIA WEIR and O T m

Respondents

Coram:  Heerey J

Place: Launceston

Date:  6 April 1993

MINUTES OF 0IU)ERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The Application be dismissed.

2. On or before Monday 3 May 1993 the applicant file and

serve on the respondents ' solicitors particulars of his

claim in respect of:

i. The allegation that the warrant was executed

together with any further affidavit on which the

improperly.

ii.  The allegation that goods taken in execution of the warrant were detained for an excessive period of time.

iii. The applicant's claim under the A d n ~ i n i s t r a t l v e

Decisions (3udicial Review) Act 1977.

iv.  Damages suffered as a result of the matters referred to in i, ii and iii.

applicant wishes to rely.

3.   The matter be adjourned to a direction hearing to be fixed by the District Registrar for a date within 14 days after 3 May 1993.

1. That the address fcr service on the applicant o r the purposes of these proceedings be 103 Wellington Street, Launceston 7250 Tasmania and that service at that address by post be sufficient service for the purpose of the Rules.

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

IN THE FEDERF&	COURT OF AUSTRALIR	) )
TASMANIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	)	NO. TG 7 of 1992
)
GENERAL DIVISION	)
BETWEEN:

WILLIAM TIIOMAS BARTLETT

and

CLARE PATRICIA WEIR and OTHERS

Respondents

Coram:  Heerey J

Place: Launceston

Date:  6 April 1993

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR ZJDGMENT

I dismiss this application for leave to appeal.

It is accepted, and I have also satisfied myself, that the order of Northrop J made on 17 February 1993 was an interiocutory judgment within the meaning of s.24(1A) of the

Federal Court Act 1976 and therefore leave is required.

The applicant, Mr Bartlett, appeared in person and addressed a	careful and courteous argument to the Court dealing with the
merits of Northrop J's decision. Of course, it is not for me to pass any judgment on that criticism. What I have to decide is whether there is some ground here for bringing this case within the exception to the general rule provided by s.24(1A), that is that appeals should not be brought from orders which are not final orders. I do not see that any such ground is made out.
It seems that there remain further live issues in this case, namely whether the warrants were executed properly, that is to say whether the police took items which were not covered by the terms of the warrant, and also whether the items that were taken were held for an improperly long period of time. There is also the question of damages should any of the applicant's contentions be upheld. Once these further stages of the case are con~pleted there will be a final order. It may be that the applicant will fail on all contentions or the applicant may succeed on the remaining contentions. Whatever be the case, when there is a final order the applicant will have an appeal as of right insofar as he is not satisfied with the order and on that appeal he will be able to, amongst other things, raise the correctness of the decision of Northrop J.
Put another way, my refusal of this application for leave to appeal does not mean that the applicant is forever shut out
before a Full Court. The policy behind s.24(lA) is that it is from challenging the correctness of Northrop J's decision
usually a more efficient way of conducting litigation to have all matters resolved and a final order reached at first instance before an appeal is brought, rather than puttlng parties to the delay and expense involved in appealing against points that might arise along the way.
In the present case I do not see that there is any reason for departing from the general rule which Parl~ament has laid down. So I will dismiss the application and i will refer the matter to the next directions hearing.
I will direct that on or before Monday, 3 May 1993, the applicant file and serve on the respondents' solicitors particulars of his claim in respect of:

1.   The allegation that the warrant was executed improperly.

2.    The allegation that goods taken in execution of the warrant were detained for an excessive period of time. .

3.	The applicant's claim under the A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
D e c i s i o n s ( J u d i c i a l R e v i e w ) A c t 1977.

4.    Damages suffered as a result of the matters referred

to in 1, 2 and 3

together with any further affidavit on which the applicant
wishes to rely.

The matter will be adjourned to a directions hearing to be fixed by the District Registrar for a date within 14 days after 3 May 1993.

There will be a direction that the address for service on the

applicant for the purposes of these proceedings be 103 Wellington Street Launceston 7250 Tasmania and that service at that address by post be sufficient service for the purpose of the Rules.

The costs of today will be reserved.

I certify that this and the preceding three (3) pages are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of his

Honour Mr Zustice Heerey.	-
Dated: 16 &G'	/943
Associate

Appearances

Counsel for the applicant:	The applicant in person
Solicitor for the applicant:	Brookman Tilley
Counsel for the respondent:	D Wilson
Solicitor for the respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor

Date of hearing:  6 April 1993