Cameron, B.A. v Rural Press Ltd - [1990] FCA 360

Re: BARBARA ANN CAMERON AND GAMESTER PTY LIMITED
And: RURAL PRESS LIMITED; JOHN LINDSAY PARKER and TIMOTHY ROY STARKER
Nos. N G521 of 1986 and N G173 of 1990
FED No. 360
Practice and Procedure - Evidence

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Burchett(1), Gummow(1) and Hill(1) JJ.

CATCHWORDS

Practice and Procedure - applications for leave to appeal from decisions concerned with the time during a hearing when discovery should be dealt with - court's discretion rediscovery rule that a tight rein is to be kept on interlocutory appeals in this area - principles applicable to appeal from refusal of an adjourment.

Evidence - trial jugdge entitled to have regard to his own observastions of a party applying for an adjournment in assessing weight to be given to medical certificates tendered to him.

HEARING

SYDNEY

#DATE 20:7:1990

Appellants: Miss Cameron appeared for herself and by leave for the corporate appellant.

Counsel for the respondents: Mr A.S. Martin

Solicitors for the respondents: Messrs Sly and Weigall

ORDER

Each applicant for leave to appeal be refused with costs.

The appeal be dismissed with costs.

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

JUDGE1

The court heard together a number of applications for leave to appeal against various interlocutory decisions, and an appeal against an order dismissing the principal application. Miss Cameron, who was unrepresented, appeared on her own behalf and on behalf of Gamester Pty Limited. The court permitted her to appear for the company without objection on the part of the respondents.

The applications for leave and the appeal arise out of complex litigation launched by Miss Cameron and Gamester Pty Limited (to whom we shall refer together as the appellants) against the respondents. In the statement of claim, allegations were made against the respondents, concerning certain business transactions, of duress, undue influence, misrepresentation and especially, so we were told, taking advantage of market power within the meaning of s.46 of the Trade Practices Act 1974. Originally, the appellants had the benefit of legal aid, granted apparently by the Attorney-General under s.170 of that Act, but after about $100,000 had been expended in respect of the proceedings, numerous changes of solicitor for the appellants having occurred, the grant of legal aid was withdrawn. At the hearing at first instance, as on the appeal, the appellants were without legal representation.
The applications for leave to appeal relate to numerous interlocutory decisions made by the trial judge - upon an application to strike out the defence because of the respondents' alleged failure to give adequate discovery; upon an application for further discovery; upon applications to set aside certain subpoenas; upon applications to inspect documents; upon an application in respect of the date of attendance to be nominated in certain subpoenas; and finally upon an application to defer the issue of subpoenas, to adjourn the commencement of the hearing and that the delayed trial be upon affidavit…

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 [1990] FCA 360
Case: [1990] FCA 360
Decision Date: 20 JULY 1990

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Court of Australia presided over an application by Cameron, B.A. against Rural Press Ltd, where the primary issue revolved around the procedural aspects of the case, specifically concerning the timing of discovery during a hearing and the appropriateness of interlocutory appeals. The application for leave to appeal was based on the refusal of an adjournment, and the core of the dispute lay in whether the court's decision to deny the adjournment was correct and if the refusal of the interlocutory appeal was justified.

The court was tasked with determining the principles governing the refusal of an adjournment and the exercise of discretion in interlocutory appeals, particularly those that challenge the timing of discovery during a hearing. The legal issues encompassed the appropriateness of the interlocutory appeal, the court's discretion in controlling such appeals, and adherence to the rediscovery rule that mandates a stringent approach to interlocutory appeals in this context. The court also needed to assess whether the refusal of the adjournment was within the bounds of procedural fairness and justice.

In its reasoning, the court emphasised the importance of maintaining a tight rein on interlocutory appeals, highlighting that such appeals should be sparingly granted to avoid unnecessary delays and to ensure that the primary litigation proceeds without undue interruption. The court found that the refusal of the adjournment was justified, as the application did not meet the stringent criteria required for such a procedural step. The court concluded that the principles applicable to appeals from refusals of adjournments were correctly applied by the lower court. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs awarded against the applicants.

The orders of the court were that each applicant for leave to appeal be refused with costs, and the appeal itself be dismissed with costs. The settlement and entry of orders were to be dealt with in accordance with Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

Orders

Orders of the court

Each applicant for leave to appeal be refused with costs.

The appeal be dismissed with costs.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealth 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.