Croker v Philips Electronics Australia Ltd

[2002] FCA 1454

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Croker v Philips Electronics Australia Ltd

[2002] FCA 1454

CLAYTON ROBERT CROKER v PHILIPS ELECTRONICS AUSTRALIA LIMITED, DICK SMITH’S ELECTRONICS PTY LIMITED and TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED
N 1212 OF 2002

GYLES J
SYDNEY
22 NOVEMBER 2002

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 1212 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

CLAYTON ROBERT CROKER
APPLICANT

AND:

PHILIPS ELECTRONICS AUSTRALIA LIMITED
FIRST RESPONDENT

DICK SMITH’S ELECTRONICS PTY LIMITED
SECOND RESPONDENT

TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

GYLES J

DATE OF ORDER:

22 NOVEMBER 2002

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        I refer the hearing of this motion to a Full Court.

2.I recommend that it be heard together with the matter of Bizuneh v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs, N1113 of 2002.

3.Costs are reserved.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 1212 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

CLAYTON ROBERT CROKER
APPLICANT

AND:

PHILIPS ELECTRONICS AUSTRALIA LIMITED
FIRST RESPONDENT

DICK SMITH’S ELECTRONICS PTY LIMITED
SECOND RESPONDENT

TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	GYLES J
DATE:	22 NOVEMBER 2002
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is a notice of motion which initially seeks leave to appeal from what was described as a judgment of Sackville J, dated 12 November 2002, which were reasons given by his Honour for giving a direction to the registrar pursuant to O 46 r 7A of the Rules of Court to refuse to accept an application and affidavit sought to be filed by the applicant on this  motion, Mr Clayton Robert Croker (Croker v Philips Electronics Australia Ltd [2002] FCA 1393). If his Honour's direction is a judgment or order from which an appeal lies, then on the face of it at least it would be an interlocutory order and it would require leave to appeal.

2. The second order sought in the notice of motion is that the judgment be set aside.  That, I think, would be dependant upon the judgment being a final judgment and in any event is not in proper form.  The third is an order compelling the registrar to accept the application and affidavit.  Again, this notice of motion is not an appropriate vehicle for any such application.

3. Yesterday, I had occasion to consider what I should do in precisely this kind of application in relation to a similar direction.  The only difference is that in that case there were no reasons in evidence for the judge's direction.  In that case (Bizuneh v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 1453), I formed the view that it would be inappropriate that I as a single judge should continue to hear the motion, because there is a real issue as to whether or not a direction pursuant to that rule is a judgment or order from which an appeal lies. In view of the fact that…