Cameron, B.A. v Rural Press Ltd - [1992] FCA 179

Re: BARBARA ANN CAMERON and GAMESTER PTY LTD
And: RURAL PRESS LTD; JOHN LINDSAY PARKER and TIMOTHY ROY STARKEY
No. G521 of 1986, G646 and G839 of 1991
FED No. 179
Practice and Procedure
(1992) 35 FCR 211

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Northrop(1), Davies(1) and Neaves(1) JJ.

CATCHWORDS

Practice and Procedure - appeals and application to the full court - litigant in person unable to proceed - whether an adjournment of the Full Court proceedings should be granted - whether adjournment required as an appeal to the Legal Aid Review Committee had been lodged - whether the Court should dismiss the appeals and applications.

HEARING

SYDNEY

#DATE 14:4:1992

Counsel for the Respondents: A.S. Martin

Solicitors for the Respondents: Sly and Weigall

ORDER

Matter No. NG646 of 1991

1. The appeal be dismissed with costs.

2. The motion, notice of which was filed on 23 December 1991 and relating to the timetable for the index of the appeal books, be refused with costs.
Matter No. NG839 of 1991

The appeal be dismissed with costs.
Matter No. NG521 of 1986

1. The motion, notice of which was dated 16 April 1991 relating to leave to appeal against the orders of Beaumont J. made 16 April 1991, be refused with costs.

2. The applications for leave to appeal from the orders of Sheppard J. made on 25 and 26 July 1991 be dismissed with costs.

3. The motions, notice of which was filed on 18 October 1991 relating to the preliminary settlement hearings and leave to appeal, be refused with costs.

4. The motion, notice of which is dated 18 December relating to leave to appeal from orders made by Sheppard J. on 29 November 1991, be refused with costs.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

JUDGE1

The two appeals, being matters No. NG 646 of 1991 and No. NG 839 of 1991, had been fixed for hearing on 27 February 1992. On 31 January 1992 in each of the three matters presently before the Court, the Court constituted by Lockhart J., made a series of orders to the effect that the appeal No. NG 646 of 1991 should not be the only matter to proceed before the Federal Court on 27 February 1992 but that the two appeals be listed before the Full Court on that day and that all extant notices of motion or applications for leave to appeal in matters No. NG 521 of 1986, No. NG 646 of 1991 and No. NG 839 of 1991 or otherwise related to any of those matters be listed before the Full Court on 27 February 1992. Other orders were made but need not be referred to at the present time.

When the matters were called on before the Full Court on 27 February 1992 Ms Barbara Ann Cameron appeared on her own behalf and was granted leave, pursuant to O.9 r.1(3)…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Cameron, B.A. v Rural Press Ltd

Details

AGLC: Cameron, B.A. & Anor v Rural Press Ltd & ors [1992] FCA 179 ((1992) 35 FCR 211)
Case: [1992] FCA 179
Decision Date: 14 APRIL 1992

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Cameron, B.A. v Rural Press Ltd, the case before the Federal Court involved multiple appeals and applications related to a legal dispute between the parties. The appellant, Cameron, B.A., was proceeding as a litigant in person and sought various adjournments and appeals against prior court decisions. Rural Press Ltd, the respondent, opposed the applications on the grounds that they were without merit and sought dismissal of the appeals and applications. The Full Court was tasked with determining the appropriate course of action regarding these proceedings, particularly in light of Cameron's status as a self-represented litigant and the potential impact of an appeal to the Legal Aid Review Committee.

The legal issues before the Court were whether an adjournment of the Full Court proceedings should be granted, and if so, whether such an adjournment was necessary given that an appeal to the Legal Aid Review Committee had been lodged. The Court had to consider the implications of Cameron's status as a litigant in person and the procedural fairness in handling the appeals and applications. Additionally, the Court needed to decide whether to dismiss the appeals and applications outright due to their lack of merit.

The Court held that the appeals and applications were without merit and dismissed them with costs. The Full Court reasoned that Cameron's status as a litigant in person did not warrant an adjournment, particularly since an appeal to the Legal Aid Review Committee was already in process. The Court found that the applications were procedurally improper and did not present a sufficient basis for granting leave to appeal. Consequently, the Court refused the various motions and notices for adjournment and leave to appeal, dismissing each application with costs awarded against Cameron, B.A.

In summary, the Full Court dismissed the appeals and applications, awarding costs against Cameron, B.A. The Court's decision was based on the lack of merit in the proceedings and the procedural fairness in handling the appeals as a self-represented litigant. The orders included dismissing the appeals, refusing the motions for adjournment, and awarding costs against the appellant.

Orders

Orders of the court

Matter No. NG646 of 1991

1. The appeal be dismissed with costs.

2. The motion, notice of which was filed on 23 December 1991 and relating to the timetable for the index of the appeal books, be refused with costs.

Matter No. NG839 of 1991

The appeal be dismissed with costs.

Matter No. NG521 of 1986

1. The motion, notice of which was dated 16 April 1991 relating to leave to appeal against the orders of Beaumont J. made 16 April 1991, be refused with costs.

2. The applications for leave to appeal from the orders of Sheppard J. made on 25 and 26 July 1991 be dismissed with costs.

3. The motions, notice of which was filed on 18 October 1991 relating to the preliminary settlement hearings and leave to appeal, be refused with costs.

4. The motion, notice of which is dated 18 December relating to leave to appeal from orders made by Sheppard J. on 29 November 1991, be refused with costs.

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

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.