Brown v Forestry Tasmania

[2005] FCA 1210

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Brown v Forestry Tasmania [2005] FCA 1210

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for leave to intervene granted – existing intervener with similar interests – proposed intervener entitled to protect its interests

ROBERT BROWN v FORESTRY TASMANIA

TAD 17 OF 2005

MARSHALL J
5 SEPTEMBER 2005
MELBOURNE (by video link to HOBART)

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
TASMANIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	TAD 17 OF 2005

BETWEEN:	ROBERT BROWN APPLICANT
AND:	FORESTRY TASMANIA RESPONDENT
AND:	COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA INTERVENER

JUDGE:	MARSHALL J
DATE OF ORDER:	5 SEPTEMBER 2005
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.   The State of Tasmania be granted leave to intervene in the proceeding (both orally and in writing as is convenient to the Court) pursuant to Order 6 rule 17 of the Rules of Court.

2.   Order 6 r 17(4) of the Rules of Court be dispensed with so that, upon obtaining appropriate leave, the State of Tasmania may cross-examine witnesses at trial.

3.   The intervention of the State of Tasmania is limited to the matters contained in issues numbered 8 and 9 in the document “Agreed List of Issues” filed on 21 July 2005.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
TASMANIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	TAD 17 OF 2005

BETWEEN:	ROBERT BROWN APPLICANT
AND:	FORESTRY TASMANIA RESPONDENT
AND:	COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA INTERVENOR

JUDGE:	MARSHALL J
DATE:	5 SEPTEMBER 2005
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. By motion dated 19 August 2005 the State of Tasmania applied to the Court to be granted leave to intervene in the current proceeding.  The applicant opposed the grant of leave.

2. On 23 August 2005 the Court granted the Commonwealth of Australia leave to intervene and limited such intervention to issues numbered 2, 8 and 9 on the agreed list of issues document filed by the parties on 21 July 2005.

3. Tasmania is a party to an agreement with the Commonwealth, the status of which is a matter to be dealt with in the proceeding.  As it is interested in the outcome of the proceeding, and as the other party to the agreement has been granted leave to intervene, it is appropriate to grant the State leave to intervene to protect its interests.

4. Leave to intervene will be limited so that Tasmania will only be heard orally and/or in writing on matters relevant to paragraphs 8 and 9 of the agreed list of issues.  Leave was sought only with respect to those issues.  The Court will order that O 6 r 17(4) of the Rules of Court be dispensed with, pursuant to O 1 r 8 so that, upon obtaining leave where appropriate, the State may cross-examine witnesses at trial.

5. Although the State appears to identify no issue distinct from that raised by the Commonwealth, it has its own interests to protect and the Court is confident that granting it leave to intervene will not unduly prolong the proceeding.  If that confidence is misplaced the grant of leave to intervene may be reviewed, on the Court’s own motion.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Marshall.

Associate:

Dated:            5 September 2005

Solicitors for the Applicant:	FitzGerald and Browne Lawyers
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Director of Public Prosecutions
Completion of written submissions:	25 August 2005
Date of Judgment:	5 September 2005