Chan v Harris - [2010] FCA 1428

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Chan v Harris [2010] FCA 1428

Citation: Chan v Harris [2010] FCA 1428

Parties: YAU HANG CHAN v ALAN HARRIS

File number: NSD 1372 of 2010

Judge: KATZMANN J

Date of judgment: 17 December 2010

Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 24(1A)
Federal Court Rules O 35A r 3(1)(a), O 52 r 10, O 52 r 17(3)

Cases cited: Chan v Harris (No 2) [2010] FCA 1393
Luck, Re [2003] HCA 70, 203 ALR 1
National Mutual Life Association of Australasia Ltd v Grosvenor Hill (Queensland) (Formerly Hillier, Parker (Queensland) Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 237, 183 ALR 700

Date of hearing: 16 December 2010

Place: Sydney

Division: GENERAL DIVISION

Category: No catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 14

Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person.

Solicitor for the Respondent: Corrs Chambers Westgarth (submitting appearance)

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 1372 of 2010

BETWEEN:
YAU HANG CHAN
Applicant

AND:
ALAN HARRIS
Respondent

JUDGE:

KATZMANN J

DATE OF ORDER:

17 DECEMBER 2010

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The applicant file and serve an affidavit attaching a draft notice of appeal incorporating the existing grounds set out in the notice of appeal filed on 18 October 2010 and any further grounds he may wish to raise in relation to the judgment of this Court in Chan v Harris (No 2) [2010] FCA 1393.
2.The hearing of the remaining prayers in the notices of motion filed on 1 November 2010 (as amended on 12 November 2010) and on 24 November 2010 be stood over to a date to be fixed.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 1372 of 2010

BETWEEN:
YAU HANG CHAN
Applicant

AND:
ALAN HARRIS
Respondent

JUDGE:

KATZMANN J

DATE:

17 DECEMBER 2010

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

In proceeding NSD 538 of 2010 (“the proceeding”) the applicant, Mr Chan, sought preliminary discovery of numerous documents from the respondent, Mr Harris, an employee of Catholic Care Sydney, which operates Local Employment and Training Solutions (LETS) programs. In substance, Mr Chan believes that a report LETS prepared and gave to Centrelink contains fraudulent and defamatory allegations about him.
Relevantly identical proceedings for preliminary discovery were commenced by Mr Chan on 14 May 2009 (NSD 426 of 2009) in which the Court made orders in Mr Chan’s favour on 3 June 2009. Apparently, the only substantial difference is the identity of the respondents. Both proceedings were heard by Cowdroy J.
On 17 June 2010 Mr Chan filed a notice of motion applying for his Honour to disqualify himself from hearing the application in the proceeding. Throughout the proceeding Mr Chan was unrepresented, as he was before me. After hearing argument for a day…

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 Chan v Harris

Details

AGLC: Chan v Harris [2010] FCA 1428
Case: [2010] FCA 1428
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Yau Hang Chan, the applicant, filed a case against Alan Harris, the respondent, seeking preliminary discovery of documents related to a report prepared by Local Employment and Training Solutions (LETS) programs. Chan believed that the report contained fraudulent and defamatory allegations about him. The case was heard by Katzmann J, who dismissed Chan's application for discovery of documents and denied his request for disqualification of the judge. Chan filed a notice of appeal against the interlocutory judgment, but did not obtain leave to appeal, making the appeal incompetent. The court advised Chan to file a notice of motion and affidavit in support to apply for leave, but Chan instead filed a notice of motion seeking various orders, including a declaration that a section of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 is unconstitutional.

The court refused to hear some of the prayers in Chan's notice of motion and granted him leave to amend his notice of motion to seek leave to appeal and an extension of time. Chan filed a further notice of motion seeking various orders, including an injunction staying certain decisions until the final determination of the case. However, the court dismissed the application and all remaining notices of motion with costs, making any appeal from the decision subject to the requirement of leave. The court refused leave to amend the notice of appeal, as the original notice of appeal was incompetent and leave was also required to appeal from the final judgment. The court also refused leave to issue further subpoenas as there was no legitimate forensic purpose for their issue.

The court refused to entertain an oral application for a stay of the final judgment, informing Chan that he could file a notice of motion seeking such an order. The court decided that the most appropriate course was to order Chan to file and serve an affidavit attaching a draft notice of appeal incorporating the existing grounds and any further grounds he may wish to raise in relation to the judgment, and to stand over the hearing of the remaining prayers in the notices of motion to a date to be fixed.

Orders