Brown v Forestry Tasmania (No 2)

Case [2006] FCA 468

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Brown v Forestry Tasmania (No 2) [2006] FCA 468

CORRIGENDUM

ROBERT BROWN v FORESTRY TASMANIA

TAD 17 OF 2005

MARSHALL J
1 MAY 2006 (CORRIGENDUM DATED 3 MAY 2006)
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
FIRST INTERVENER

AND:

STATE OF TASMANIA
SECOND INTERVENER

JUDGE:

MARSHALL J

DATE OF ORDER:

1 MAY 2006 (CORRIGENDUM DATED 3 MAY 2006)

WHERE MADE:

HOBART

CORRIGENDUM

  1. On page 8 of the Reasons for Judgment in paragraph 25, the following should be deleted;

    ·“on a computer disk before this material was”;

    ·“The computer disk containing the information was then returned to the respondent.”; and

    ·“The computer hard drive was also tendered as an exhibit.”.

  2. Paragraph 25 should read:

    “The respondent provided the Forestry material to the applicant, as ordered by the Court, in electronic form copied onto a computer hard drive by the applicant’s solicitors.  The Forestry material was used by the applicant in the preparation of the maps in Exhibit C in accordance with the undertaking.”

I certify that preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the corrigendum to the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Marshall.

Associate:

Dated:            3 May 2006


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Brown v Forestry Tasmania (No 2) [2006] FCA 468

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – confidentiality – application for confidentiality order pursuant to s 50 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – whether proposed inspection amounts to “publication” – whether order necessary to prevent prejudice to the administration of justice – whether order necessary to protect the confidentiality and commercial value of the document used for business purposes of the respondent – whether order necessary to prevent collateral damage or disadvantage through misuse of information – whether order necessary given existing protection given to class of documents by O 46 r 6 of the Federal Court Rules 1979 (Cth)

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application pursuant to O 15 r 18 of the Federal Court Rules 1979 (Cth) – whether supported on the evidence

Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 50
Forestry Act 1920 (Tas) s 7
Federal Court Rules 1979 (Cth) O 15 r 18 and O 46 r 6

Computer Interchange Pty Ltd and Another v Microsoft Corp and Another [1999] FCA 198; (1999) 88 FCR 438, referred to
Johnston v Cameron [2002] FCA 948, followed
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v X [2005] FCAFC 217; (2005) 147 FCR 243, applied

Herald & Weekly Times Ltd v Williams and Others [2003] FCAFC 217; (2003) 130 FCR 435, applied

ROBERT BROWN v FORESTRY TASMANIA

TAD 17 OF 2005

MARSHALL J
1 MAY 2006
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
FIRST…

Continue reading Brown v Forestry Tasmania (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Brown v Forestry Tasmania (No 2) [2006] FCA 468
Case
[2006] FCA 468
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Brown v Forestry Tasmania (No 2), the primary dispute revolves around procedural aspects of a legal motion filed by the respondent against the applicant. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The court was tasked with determining whether the respondent’s motion, dated 20 March 2006, was appropriately considered and whether the costs associated with the motion should be awarded to either party.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the respondent’s motion, which sought a specific ruling or order, was correctly dismissed and if the subsequent costs were to be borne by the respondent. The court had to examine the procedural fairness and the merits of the motion, including whether there were any procedural errors that warranted the dismissal of the motion and the allocation of costs.

In its reasoning, the court found that the respondent’s motion was dismissed as it did not meet the necessary procedural requirements. The court determined that the procedural steps taken by the respondent were flawed, leading to the dismissal of the motion. Consequently, the court ordered the respondent to pay the costs associated with the motion to the named parties, Ms Gee, Mr Agnew, and Ms Meredith. Additionally, the court reserved the decision on the applicant’s costs pending further submissions or orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The respondent’s motion dated 20 March 2006 is dismissed.

2. The respondent pay the costs of Ms Gee, Mr Agnew and Ms Meredith in respect of the motion.

3. The applicant’s costs of the motion are reserved.

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

MARSHALL J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: MARSHALL J

Full text does not contain this section.