Chandrasekaran v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2)

[2019] FCA 1490

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Chandrasekaran v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2019] FCA 1490

File number:	NSD 974 of 2019
Judge:	GRIFFITHS J
Date of judgment:	9 September 2019
Legislation:	Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)
Date of hearing:	9 September 2019
Registry:	New South Wales
Division:	General Division
National Practice Area:	Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Category:	No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	9
Counsel for the Applicant:	The applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the First Respondent:	Ms K Hooper
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Counsel for the Second Respondent:	Mr A Stafford
Solicitor for the Second Respondent:	Crown Solicitor (NSW)
Solicitor for the Third Respondent:	Mr M Hamwood of HWL Ebsworth Lawyers
Counsel for ING Bank Australia Ltd (pending application for joinder as the 4th respondent):	Mr J Hynes

ORDERS

NSD 974 of 2019

BETWEEN:

SUJATHA CHANDRASEKARAN

Applicant

AND:

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

First Respondent

STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Second Respondent

AUSTRALIAN CENTRE FOR ADVANCED COMPUTING COMMUNICATIONS PTY LTD

Third Respondent

JUDGE:	GRIFFITHS J
DATE OF ORDER:	9 SEPTEMBER 2019

BY CONSENT, THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The time for compliance with Order 1 of the orders made on 29 August 2019 be extended to 9 September 2019.

2.The time for compliance with Order 3 of the orders made on 29 August 2019 be extended to 4:00pm on 16 September 2019.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

3.The interlocutory application dated 1 September 2019 is dismissed.

Note:   Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(REVISED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT)

GRIFFITHS J:

1. This matter came before me today as Duty Judge.  The respondents propose to seek summary dismissal of the applicant’s substantive proceedings which were commenced by way of an originating application dated 14 June 2019.  There is a statement of claim dated 12 August 2019. 

2. The matter has been docketed to Wigney J.  I understand that, on 29 August 2019, when the matter was before his Honour for a case management hearing, his Honour made orders with a view to the respondents filing interlocutory applications seeking summary dismissal by a particular time, as well as orders being made for the filing of evidence and the filing of outlines of submissions by the parties.  It is also apparent that the Court made an order on that day that the applicant file and serve an amended statement of claim on or before 5 September 2019.

3. The applicant, who represents herself and who has appeared before me today, has indicated that because of her state of health last week, she was unable to comply with that order.  She does, however, have with her a proposed amended statement of claim.  She has indicated that she considers that she does not require leave to file that document, having regard to the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) because this is the first time that she seeks to amend her original statement of claim.

4. I was handed a copy of an email dated Friday, 6 September 2019, which was sent to the parties from the Registry.  The parties were informed that Wigney J is presently on leave, but his chambers have advised that he is happy to consider matters such as consent orders, and that the proposed orders, which would vary the orders made on 29 August 2019, have been provided to him for consideration.  The parties were advised that they will be advised whether or not those orders have been made.

5. The proposed consent orders, to which reference was made in that email, are orders which the parties, as I have indicated, have agreed should be made, namely, (1) that the time for compliance with Order 1 of the orders dated 29 August 2019 be extended to today, 9 September 2019 and (2) that the time for compliance with Order 3 of those orders be extended to 4:00pm on 16 September 2019. Having regard to the fact that these proposed orders are by consent and having regard to the fact that Wigney J is on leave, I will make those orders. 

6. Insofar as the applicant’s interlocutory application is concerned, which is dated 1 September 2019, and the supporting affidavit affirmed by the applicant, which bears the same date, I have read that affidavit and I have heard oral submissions from the applicant as to why she considers that the foreshadowed summary dismissal application should be heard before 30 October 2019.

7. I have reviewed the transcript of the case management hearing before the docket judge on 29 August 2019.  I have also noted that the applicant’s interlocutory application, dated 1 September 2019, was originally listed before Bromwich J, as the duty judge last week.  I have also noted that on or about 3 September, the applicant emailed the Registry stating that she was unwell and she asked for the matter to be moved to this week.  That is the reason why this case management hearing has now been listed before me today.

8. Having reviewed the materials that I have described above, and having listened to what the applicant has said, I am unpersuaded that the matter should proceed otherwise than in accordance with the orders made by Wigney J on 29 August 2019 save as varied in respect of the two matters that I have described above.

9. For those reasons, the interlocutory application, dated 1 September 2019, is dismissed.

I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Griffiths.

Associate:

Dated:       10 September 2019