FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Brock v Minister for Home Affairs [2011] FCA 1171
Citation: Brock v Minister for Home Affairs [2011] FCA 1171 Appeal from: Brock v Minister for Home Affairs [2010] FCA 1301 Parties: GEORGE PAUL BROCK v MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS File number: NSD 1708 of 2010 Judge: DOWNES J Date of judgment: 14 October 2011 Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 r 1.35, r 36.41 Date of hearing: Heard on the papers Date of last submissions: 11 October 2011 Place: Sydney Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: No Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 5 Counsel for the Appellant: The appellant appeared in person Solicitor for the Respondent: Blake Dawson
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
NSD 1708 of 2010
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: GEORGE PAUL BROCK
AppellantAND: MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS
Respondent
JUDGE:
DOWNES J
DATE OF ORDER:
14 OCTOBER 2011
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Leave granted to the appellant to file an amended notice of appeal in accordance with the draft dated 9 October 2011.
2.Application to have the appeal determined on written submissions alone refused.
3.No order as to costs.
4.Liberty to apply.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
NSD 1708 of 2010
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: GEORGE PAUL BROCK
AppellantAND: MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS
Respondent
JUDGE:
DOWNES J
DATE:
14 OCTOBER 2011
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The appellant George Paul Brock has made application for leave to file an amended notice of appeal and for an order that the appeal be determined on written submissions only without any hearing. The respondent Minister consents to the appellant being granted leave to amend the notice of appeal and submits that the application for a hearing on the papers should be deferred until the written submissions are complete.
Leave is granted to the appellant to file an amended notice of appeal in accordance with the draft dated 9 October 2011.
Rule 36.41 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 identifies “applications which may be dealt with without an oral hearing”. They do not include the hearing of an appeal. Rule 1.35 permits orders inconsistent with the Rules, but such an order would require a special occasion. A hearing presents a valuable opportunity for the Court to ask questions about written submissions even if the parties do not desire to add anything. In all the circumstances, the court does not propose to defer ruling on the application and proposes to refuse it.
This ruling does not prevent the appellant from confining his submissions to the content of his written submissions. The appellant should determine whether he does not wish to appear at all at the hearing and, if he does, whether he wishes to appear in person, or, if possible by video link. The appellant should, whatever the case may be, see that the Registry of the Court is informed of his wishes either directly or through the Metropolitan Remand and Reception Centre at Silverwater at the earliest opportunity.
In the circumstances the Court does not propose to make any order for costs.
I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Downes. Associate:
Dated: 14 October 2011
- AGLC
- Brock v Minister for Home Affairs [2011] FCA 1171
- Case
- [2011] FCA 1171
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether leave should be granted for the appellant to amend his notice of appeal and whether the appeal could proceed solely on written submissions. The court had to consider the procedural requirements outlined in the Federal Court Rules 2011 and balance these with the principles of procedural fairness and the need for the case to be dealt with efficiently.
The court granted leave for the appellant to file an amended notice of appeal, finding that the amendment would not cause any substantial injustice to the respondent. The court considered that the proposed amendment clarified the grounds of appeal and was in the interests of justice. However, the court refused the application to determine the appeal on written submissions alone. The court reasoned that the issues involved were complex and that an oral hearing would be necessary to fully understand and decide the matters in dispute.
No order was made as to costs, and liberty to apply was granted. The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the procedural rules and the circumstances of the case, ensuring that the appellant's rights to a fair hearing were protected while also considering the respondent's interests.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Leave granted to the appellant to file an amended notice of appeal in accordance with the draft dated 9 October 2011.
2. Application to have the appeal determined on written submissions alone refused.
3. No order as to costs.
4. Liberty to apply.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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.