Druett v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services

[2001] FCA 1891

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Druett v Secretary, Department of Family & Community Services
[2001] FCA 1891

GARRY DRUETT v SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY & COMMUNITY SERVICES

N 1562 OF 2001

LINDGREN J
17 DECEMBER 2001
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 1562 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	GARRY DRUETT APPLICANT
AND:	SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY & COMMUNITY SERVICES RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	LINDGREN J
DATE OF ORDER:	17 DECEMBER 2001
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The application be dismissed.

2.        The applicant pay the respondent’s costs.

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 1562 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	GARRY DRUETT APPLICANT
AND:	SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY & COMMUNITY SERVICES RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	LINDGREN J
DATE:	17 DECEMBER 2001
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant, Mr Garry Druett, commenced this proceeding on 23 November 2001 by filing an application which was entirely blank but for his signature and the date, and, under the printed heading in the standard form of application, “details of claim”, the words “Notice of Motion. See Attached”.

2. Indeed, a notice of motion was filed on the same day, as was an affidavit.  I will not set out all that those documents state.  It suffices to say that Mr Druett made it clear by his notice of motion that he was seeking “review” of an order of Whitlam J made on 23 November 2001 that a certain application by him in this Court be transferred to the Federal Magistrates Court.

3. On 27 November 2001 the Associate to Sackville J wrote a letter to Mr Druett setting out subss 44AA(1) and 44AA(10) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) and subss 32AB(1) and 32AB(8) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). Notwithstanding this, Mr Druett has appeared this morning and I have again drawn his attention to these provisions. Clearly, the notice of motion and application must be dismissed.

4. Mr Peek, solicitor, who appears for the respondent seeks an order that Mr Druett pay his client’s costs.  This is the order ordinarily made in circumstances such as those I have outlined.  There is a particular reason why that order should be made in this case, namely, that Mr Druett had his attention drawn to the statutory provisions, but did not seek leave to discontinue.   Mr Peek does not seek an order for indemnity costs and I suppose it is appropriate that he should not do so in view of the fact that Mr Druett is not legally represented.  There will be the ordinary order for costs. 

5. The Court orders that:

   1.        The application be dismissed.

   2.        The applicant pay the respondent’s costs.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Lindgren.

Associate:

Dated:             2 January 2002

The Applicant appeared in person.
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Mr G J Peek of the Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	17 December 2001
Date of Judgment:	17 December 2001