Briggs-Smith v Moree Plains Shire Council - [2012] FMCA 304

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BRIGGS-SMITH v MOREE PLAINS SHIRE COUNCIL

[2012] FMCA 304

HUMAN RIGHTS – Procedures of Federal Magistrates Court – interim applications for capping of future party/party costs and for discovery – whether applicant seeking relief in public interest – merits of matter – absence of necessary respondents – interim applications refused.

Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth), ss.46PH(1)(i), 46PO
Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth), s.45
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.21.03
Racial Discrimination Act 1975, s.9

Corcoran v Virgin Blue Airlines Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 864
Flew v Mirvac Parking [2006] FMCA 1818
Grigor-Scott v Jones [2008] FCAFC 14
L v Commonwealth of Australia [2009] FCA 4
Lawrance v The Commonwealth Of Australia & Ors [2006] FMCA 1792
Victoria v Sutton (1998) 195 CLR 291

Applicant:

NOELINE BRIGGS-SMITH

Respondent:

MOREE PLAINS SHIRE COUNCIL

File Number:

SYG 2767 of 2011

Judgment of:

Smith FM

Hearing date:

2 April 2012

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

2 April 2012

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Ms B Tronson

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Environmental Defenders Office NSW Ltd

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr E Young

Solicitors for the Respondent:

TressCox Lawyers

ORDERS

The applicant’s applications in a case filed on 25 January 2012 and 9 March 2012 are refused.
Costs in relation to those applications are reserved.
The respondent must file and serve any application for summary dismissal and all affidavits in support no later than 23 April 2012. The application is to be made returnable for 31 May 2012 at 10.15am.
The applicant must file and serve any affidavits in reply on or before 14 May 2012.
The respondent must file and serve any outline of submissions and list of authorities no later than 21 May 2012.
The applicant must file and serve any outline of submissions and list of authorities no later than 25 May 2012.
The proceedings are listed for hearing of that application and for directions generally on 31 May 2012 at 10.15am.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 2767 of 2011

NOELINE BRIGGS-SMITH

Applicant

And

MOREE PLAINS SHIRE COUNCIL

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(revised from transcript)

This judgment explains my reasons for refusing interlocutory applications by the applicant, Ms Briggs-Smith, for an order which would cap at $5,000 the costs that might be made against the unsuccessful party at the end of the case, and for orders that Moree Plains Shire Council must follow formal Court procedures to give discovery of numerous documents.
The principal proceedings commenced with a complaint made by Ms Briggs-Smith to the Australian Human Rights Commission on 8 September 2010. The complaint concerned the management of an indigenous collection in the Northern Regional Library, which is jointly owned by a partnership of four local councils in north western New South Wales, and which was managed in the past by employees of the Moree Plains Shire Council in premises of that Council at Moree which were called the Dhiiyaan Indigenous Centre.
The complaint by Ms Briggs-Smith was made…

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 Briggs-Smith v Moree Plains Shire Council 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: [2012] FMCA 304
Decision Date: 2 April 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Briggs-Smith v Moree Plains Shire Council case arose from a dispute between the applicant, Briggs-Smith, and the Moree Plains Shire Council. Briggs-Smith filed two applications in the Local Court, one on 25 January 2012 and another on 9 March 2012, which were subsequently denied by the court. The matter before the court involved the refusal of the applications and the determination of the procedural steps moving forward, including the timing for filing applications for summary dismissal, affidavits, and outlines of submissions.

The primary legal issue was whether the applications filed by Briggs-Smith should be dismissed and the subsequent procedural timetable for the case. The court needed to address the procedural fairness of the applications, the timeliness of the filings, and the appropriate course of action for both parties. Additionally, the court had to ensure that the proceedings adhered to established rules and timelines, thereby facilitating an efficient and fair resolution.

In its reasoning, the court determined that the applications were not well-founded and should be refused. The court outlined a detailed procedural schedule to manage the progression of the case, including deadlines for the respondent to file applications for summary dismissal and supporting affidavits, as well as corresponding deadlines for the applicant's responses. The court also set dates for the filing of outlines of submissions and lists of authorities for both parties. Ultimately, the court fixed the date for the hearing of the application and for general directions, ensuring that the case would be managed effectively and efficiently.

The final orders included the refusal of Briggs-Smith's applications, the reservation of costs, and a detailed procedural timetable for both parties. This included deadlines for the respondent to file applications for summary dismissal, affidavits, and outlines of submissions, as well as corresponding deadlines for the applicant. The proceedings were set for hearing on 31 May 2012 at 10.15am, ensuring that the case would move forward in an orderly and timely manner.

Orders

Orders of the court

The applicant’s applications in a case filed on 25 January 2012 and 9 March 2012 are refused.

Costs in relation to those applications are reserved.

The respondent must file and serve any application for summary dismissal and all affidavits in support no later than 23 April 2012. The application is to be made returnable for 31 May 2012 at 10.15am.

The applicant must file and serve any affidavits in reply on or before 14 May 2012.

The respondent must file and serve any outline of submissions and list of authorities no later than 21 May 2012.

The applicant must file and serve any outline of submissions and list of authorities no later than 25 May 2012.

The proceedings are listed for hearing of that application and for directions generally on 31 May 2012 at 10.15am.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.