Budd v Federal Privacy Commissioner

[2005] FCA 1478

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Budd v Federal Privacy Commissioner [2005] FCA 1478

PAMELA JOAN BUDD v FEDERAL PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

NSD 1768 of 2005

BRANSON J
18 OCTOBER 2005
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1768 of 2005

BETWEEN:	PAMELA JOAN BUDD APPLICANT
AND:	FEDERAL PRIVACY COMMISSIONER RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	BRANSON J
DATE OF ORDER:	18 OCTOBER 2005
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicant’s application for leave to appeal from the interlocutory judgment of Hely J be dismissed.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1768 of 2005

BETWEEN:	PAMELA JOAN BUDD APPLICANT
AND:	FEDERAL PRIVACY COMMISSIONER RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	BRANSON J
DATE:	18 OCTOBER 2005
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 22 September 2005 the applicant filed a notice of motion seeking leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment published by Hely J on 2 September 2005.  His Honour, in reliance on O  35A r 3(1)(a) of the Federal Court Rules, dismissed an application for an order of review filed by the applicant on 15 March 2005.

2. The applicant requires an extension of time within which to make her application for leave to appeal (O 52 r 10(2A)).  If I were satisfied that an appeal from the interlocutory judgment of Hely J had any prospect of success I would grant the applicant the extension of time required to allow her to press her application for leave to appeal.

3. However, I am satisfied that no appellable error attends the interlocutory judgment of Hely J.  His Honour was alert to the problems faced by the applicant and made sympathetic allowance for them.  No error of principle can be seen to have affected his Honour’s conclusion that, notwithstanding the applicant’s problems, six months was ample opportunity for her to get legal advice and present an intelligible case for the respondent to answer.  She did not present, and still has not presented, an intelligible case for the respondent to answer.

4. For the above reasons the applicant’s application for leave to appeal from the interlocutory judgment of Hely J is dismissed.  The respondent does not seek an order for costs.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Branson.

Associate:

Dated:             18 October 2005

The Applicant appeared in person by telephone.
Counsel for the Respondent:	A Markus
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	18 October 2005
Date of Judgment:	18 October 2005