Commonwealth Of Australia (As Represented By the Department Of Infrastructure and Regional Development) v Rigney and Anor (No.2)

Case •

[2015] FCCA 1985

•

22 July 2015

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (AS REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT) v RIGNEY & ANOR (No.2) [2015] FCCA 1985
Catchwords:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Commonwealth tenancy dispute – interlocutory application – application for recusal.
Applicant: COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (AS REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT)
First Respondent: ANTHONY RIGNEY
Second Respondent: KERRY RIGNEY
File Number: SYG 652 of 2015
Judgment of: Judge Smith
Hearing date: 21 July 2015
Date of Last Submission: 21 July 2015
Delivered at: Sydney
Delivered on: 22 July 2015

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr J. Doyle & Ms A. Mitchelmore
Solicitors for the Applicant: Australian Government Solicitor
Counsel for the Second Respondent: Mr P. King

ORDERS

  1. The second respondent’s application in a case filed on 30 June 2015 be dismissed.

  2. The costs of the application are reserved.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 652 of 2015

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (AS REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT)

Applicant

And

ANTHONY RIGNEY

First Respondent

KERRY RIGNEY

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. The second respondent, Mrs Rigney, lives in premises owned by the Commonwealth of Australia pursuant to a residential tenancy agreement. The Commonwealth has brought proceedings seeking orders terminating the agreement and for vacant possession of the premises. Mrs Rigney has made an application that I recuse myself from determining the proceedings.

  2. Her application was made concurrently with an application made by another tenant of premises owned by the Commonwealth, Mr Shirvington, and the evidence and argument in the two applications were identical.

  3. I dismiss the application for recusal. The reasons for that are the same as those given by me in the matter of Commonwealth of Australia v Shirvington [2015] FCCA 1984.

I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Smith

Associate: 

Date: 22 July 2015

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document