FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Budini v Sunnyfield (No 3) [2021] FCA 1540
File number(s): SAD 266 of 2018 Judgment of: PERRY J Date of judgment: 10 December 2021 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application by litigation representative for approval of settlement – where applicant under legal incapacity due to disability – consideration of relevant factors for approval of settlement – settlement approved Legislation: Australian Consumer Law (contained in Sch 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2020 (Cth))
Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 37AG
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 9.70, 9.71
Trustee and Guardian Act 2009 (NSW)
Cases cited: Butler v Djerriwarrh Employment & Education Services Inc [2015] FCA 296
Elliott v Victoria (Department of Education & Training) [2018] FCA 1029
Fish v NSW Department of Education and Training [2018] FCA 434
James v WorkPower Inc [2019] FCA 1239
Mununggurr v Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 2188
Re Barbour’s Settlement; National Westminster Bank Ltd v Barbour [1974] 1 All ER 1188
Scandolera (by his next friend Robinson) v Victoria (Department of Education and Early Childhood Development) [2015] FCA 1451; (2015) 331 ALR 525
Division: General Division Registry: South Australia National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Number of paragraphs: 20 Date of last submission/s: 9 July 2021 Date of hearing: Determined on the papers Solicitor for the Applicants: Harmers Workplace Lawyers Solicitor for the Respondents: Clayton Utz ORDERS
SAD 266 of 2018 BETWEEN: ENRICA BUDINI
First ApplicantMICHAEL BUDINI
Second ApplicantAND: SUNNYFIELD ACN 000 415 127
First RespondentMARK CLAYTON
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
PERRY J
DATE OF ORDER:
10 DECEMBER 2021
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to r 9.70 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the agreement to settle this proceeding, as set out in the deed of release and settlement marked Annexure JVW-15 to the affidavit of Jacob Victor William White, affirmed 9 July 2021 (White Affidavit), be approved.
2.Pursuant to s 37AG(1)(a) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), to prevent any prejudice to the proper administration of justice, Annexures JVW-15, JVW-16 and JVW-19 and Exhibit JVW-17 to the White Affidavit be treated as confidential to the parties in this proceeding and until further order:
(a)be marked as confidential to the parties on the Court’s Electronic Court File; and
(b)not be available for public inspection, disclosed in open court or disclosed in the open part of any court transcript.
3.There be no order as to costs, such that each party bears their own costs.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
PERRY J:
1. INTRODUCTION
This is an application for approval of a settlement reached between the parties pursuant to rule 9.70 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (FCR).
The…
Continue reading Budini v Sunnyfield (No. 3)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Budini v Sunnyfield (No. 3) [2021] FCA 1540
- Case
- [2021] FCA 1540
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the settlement agreement and the affidavits submitted by White, taking into account the nature of Budini's disability and its impact on his capacity to provide informed consent to the settlement. The court weighed the evidence presented, including expert opinions on Budini's mental state and the appropriateness of the settlement terms. It also considered the views of Budini's family and caregivers, as well as the potential implications of the settlement for Budini's future care and support.
After a thorough analysis, the court concluded that the settlement agreement was fair and reasonable, taking into account all relevant factors. The court found that the terms of the settlement were beneficial to Budini and did not prejudice the proper administration of justice. The court approved the settlement, emphasising the importance of protecting Budini's interests while ensuring that the settlement process was conducted fairly and transparently.
The court also made orders to protect the confidentiality of certain documents related to the settlement, preventing them from being disclosed to the public or used in other legal proceedings. The court ruled that each party would bear their own costs associated with the application.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Pursuant to r 9.70 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the agreement to settle this proceeding, as set out in the deed of release and settlement marked Annexure JVW-15 to the affidavit of Jacob Victor William White, affirmed 9 July 2021 (White Affidavit), be approved.
2. Pursuant to s 37AG(1)(a) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), to prevent any prejudice to the proper administration of justice, Annexures JVW-15, JVW-16 and JVW-19 and Exhibit JVW-17 to the White Affidavit be treated as confidential to the parties in this proceeding and until further order:
(a) be marked as confidential to the parties on the Court’s Electronic Court File; and
(b) not be available for public inspection, disclosed in open court or disclosed in the open part of any court transcript.
3. There be no order as to costs, such that each party bears their own costs.
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.