Collins v Department of Finance and Deregulation (No.2)
[2011] FMCA 430
•26 May 2011
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| COLLINS v DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND DEREGULATION (No.2) | [2011] FMCA 430 |
| ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Administrative decision – judicial review – applicant seeking act of grace payment. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Adjournment – consent – possibility of settlement – possible prejudice to applicant where lawyers not prepared. |
| Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth), ss.22, 23, 24 |
| Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175; [2009] HCA 27 |
| Applicant: | SHIRLEY ANNE COLLINS |
| Respondent: | DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND DEREGULATION |
| File Number: | DNG 10 of 2010 |
| Judgment of: | Lucev FM |
| Hearing date: | 26 May 2011 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 26 May 2011 |
| Delivered at: | Darwin |
| Delivered on: | 26 May 2011 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr J Matthews |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Matthews Legal |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr P Vane-Tempest |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Blake Dawson |
ORDERS
With regards to the Orders of 5 April 2011:
(a)time be extended for the applicant to comply with Order 4(a) to 10 June 2011; and
(b)time be extended for the respondent to comply with Order 4(b) to 17 June 2011.
The extension of time hearing be adjourned to 11:00am on 21 June 2011, with leave to the respondent to appear by video link.
Costs of today be reserved.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT DARWIN |
DNG 10 of 2010
| SHIRLEY ANNE COLLINS |
Applicant
And
| DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND DEREGULATION |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Ex tempore reasons – edited from transcript)
It is with some degree of reluctance, for reasons that have already been adverted to in exchanges with Mr Matthews (counsel for the applicant), that the Court determines that it is prepared in the circumstances to grant an adjournment to the applicant.
The Court, in that regard, has considered the fact that:
a)there is consent between the parties that there ought to be an adjournment;
b)there is an obligation on the Court, under sections 22 to 24 of the Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth), to endeavour to ensure that matters are settled, and although those sections refer to means of alternative dispute resolution, the Court nevertheless thinks that that covers a situation where the parties themselves might agree to resolve a matter;
c)if the respondent’s counsel’s optimism (as to possible settlement of the proceedings) is fulfilled, then the matter may no longer require a hearing and determination by this Court, thereby saving cost and expense and time for each of the parties, and also preventing the unnecessary use of further public resources, and the Court bears in mind what the High Court said in Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University[1] about the wastage of public resources in the context of case management; and
d)regrettably, in the circumstances, the applicant’s counsel and solicitors have indicated that notwithstanding the passage of time since they have been on the record, they have not been able to come to grips with the material, and in those circumstances, it is fair to observe that there may be some prospect that an injustice might be done to the applicant if her legal representatives are not properly prepared.
[1] (2009) 239 CLR 175 at 188-189 and 192 per French CJ; [2009] HCA 27 at paras.23-24 and 30 per French CJ.
The Court is therefore prepared to adjourn the matter, but only for a period of three and a half weeks, approximately, to 11.00am on 21 June 2011 for hearing of the extension of time application.
I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Lucev FM
Date: 7 June 2011
0
1
1