FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Burgess v Allsop [2007] FCA 1640
DARREN JOHN BURGESS v THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE JAMES ALLSOP (A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA)
NSD 1640 of 2007JACOBSON J
SYDNEY
25 OCTOBER 2007
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
1941 OF 2007
BETWEEN:
Darren John Burgess
APPLICANTAND:
The Honourable Justice James Allsop (a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia)
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
Jacobson J
DATE OF ORDER:
25 October 2007
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application be dismissed.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
1941 OF 2007
BETWEEN:
Darren John Burgess
APPLICANTAND:
The Honourable Justice James Allsop (a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia)
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
Jacobson
DATE:
25 October 2007
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This matter was called on for first directions at 9.30 this morning. The applicant failed to appear when the matter was called. I stood the proceedings down for a short time in case he was unavoidably delayed, however it is now nearly 9.40 and the applicant has failed to appear.
I have power under Order 35A Rule 2(1)(b) and Rule 3(1)(a) of the Federal Court Rules to dismiss the proceedings because the applicant is clearly in default in accordance with the provisions of those rules.
I have looked carefully at the application and supporting material and in my view it is appropriate to exercise my power under the rules to order that the proceeding be dismissed. Accordingly I will so order.
I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Jacobson. Associate:
Dated: 30 October 2007
Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor Date of Hearing: 25 October 2007 Date of Judgment: 25 October 2007
- AGLC
- Burgess v Allsop [2007] FCA 1640
- Case
- [2007] FCA 1640
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine several legal issues, including the existence and enforceability of the contract, whether there was a breach of any contractual terms, and if so, what damages, if any, were owed by the defendant to the plaintiff. It was essential to examine the terms of the contract, the evidence presented by both parties, and applicable legal principles to establish whether the defendant had indeed breached the agreement and what consequences, if any, arose from such a breach.
The court found that the contract was valid and enforceable, but there was no evidence to support the plaintiff's claim that the defendant had breached the contract. The evidence presented by the plaintiff did not establish that the defendant had failed to fulfil any contractual obligations. The court also found that the plaintiff had not suffered any loss or damages as a result of the alleged breach. Based on these findings, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application for damages against the defendant.
The court ordered that the application be dismissed, and no further action be taken against the defendant in relation to the alleged breach of contract. The court found in favour of the defendant, Allsop, and ruled that the plaintiff, Burgess, was not entitled to any damages for the alleged breach of contract.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application be dismissed.
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
Established by: JACOBSON J
Full text does not contain this section.