Dunstan v Orr

[2007] FCA 873

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Dunstan v Orr [2007] FCA 873

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth)
Federal Court Rules o 1 r 4, o11 r 7
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)

Décor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397
Dunstan v Orr [2007] FCA 652
Ex parte Bucknell (1936) 56 CLR 221
O’Reilly v The Commissioners of the State Bank of Victoria (1982) 153 CLR 1
Yap v Granich & Associates [2001] FCA 1735

COLIN GEORGE DUNSTAN v ROBYN ORR, JOHN HIGHAM AND JOHN GROWDER
ACD 17 OF 2007

BUCHANAN J
28 MAY 2007
CANBERRA

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY	ACD 17 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

COLIN GEORGE DUNSTAN
Applicant

AND:

ROBYN ORR
First Respondent

JOHN HIGHAM
Second Respondent

JOHN GROWDER
Third Respondent

JUDGE:	BUCHANAN J
DATE OF ORDER:	28 MAY 2007
WHERE MADE:	CANBERRA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The application for leave to appeal is refused.

2.The applicant for leave to appeal pay the costs of the respondent to be taxed, if not agreed.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY	ACD 17 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

COLIN GEORGE DUNSTAN
Applicant

AND:

ROBYN ORR
First Respondent

JOHN HIGHAM
Second Respondent

JOHN GROWDER
Third Respondent

JUDGE:	BUCHANAN J
DATE:	28 MAY 2007
PLACE:	CANBERRA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BUCHANAN J:

1. The application with which this judgment deals is for leave to appeal against interlocutory decisions made by a judge of this Court on 4 May 2007 (Dunstan v Orr [2007] FCA 652). The proceedings in which the interlocutory rulings were made are proceedings brought by the applicant under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (‘the ADJR Act’) and the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth).

2. In those proceedings, which were commenced by application filed in 1997, Mr Dunstan has pleaded (by Statement of Claim filed 4 November 1998) a challenge to three identified ‘decisions’. They were (accepting for present purposes they are in fact decisions open to judicial review) a ‘decision’ that Mr Dunstan may have failed to fulfil his duty as an officer of the Commonwealth public service, a decision to suspend him from duty and a decision to charge him with misconduct. The grounds of challenge are conventional ones reflected in the ADJR Act. He seeks that the decisions be set aside and his pay and other entitlements be restored.

3. The interlocutory applications, the decisions upon those applications and the reasons therefore may be summarised as follows:

   (i)Application to amend the application in the main proceedings by the addition of causes of action and further respondents – refused – insufficient grounds shown, unsatisfactory form, necessity for an inappropriate adjournment.  As to an application to join two further individual respondents, no foundation for the joinder.  As to an application to join the Commonwealth of Australia, a different cause of action is alleged which may be the subject of…