FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| ELLIS v SILVER VISION PTY LTD (No.2) | [2017] FCCA 151 |
| Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Dismissal of action for non-compliance with Court orders – test for non-compliance – requirement for evidence on oath where relief from non-compliance sought on medical grounds. COURTS AND JUDGES – Role of judicial officer in determining case – whether judicial officer ought to undertake independent inspections of premises. COSTS – Indemnity costs – whether applicant’s conduct of proceedings and before the Court warrants an award of indemnity costs – where conduct includes abuse of judge and other party’s lawyer. |
| Legislation: Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth), s.46PO |
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Ellis v Silver Vision Pty Ltd (No 2) and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2017] FCCA 151
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the Court were whether the applicant had failed to comply with the Court's previous orders, and if so, whether the application should be dismissed as a consequence. The Court was also required to determine whether the applicant's conduct warranted an award of indemnity costs in favour of the respondent, particularly in light of alleged abuse directed at the judge and the respondent's legal representative. A further procedural issue arose concerning a minor amendment to a previous order.
Judge Antoni Lucev found that the applicant had indeed failed to comply with the Court's orders of 22 November 2016, which required him to provide evidence on oath, especially given that relief from non-compliance was sought on medical grounds. The Court reasoned that the applicant's persistent non-compliance, coupled with his abusive conduct towards the Court and the respondent's lawyer, demonstrated a disregard for the judicial process and justified the dismissal of the application. The Court also determined that the applicant's conduct warranted an award of indemnity costs.
Consequently, the Court ordered that the application be dismissed pursuant to rule 13.03B(1)(a) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) due to the applicant's non-compliance with previous orders. The applicant was also ordered to pay the respondent's costs on an indemnity basis, to be assessed by a Registrar. The Court also made a minor amendment to a previous order by deleting the word "first" before "respondent" in order 1 of the orders made on 24 January 2017.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. By reason of the applicant’s non-compliance with orders 1 and 2 of the Court’s orders of 22 November 2016 the application as against the respondent be dismissed pursuant to r.13.03B(1)(a) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth).
2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs on an indemnity basis, those costs to be assessed by a Registrar of this Court.
3. Reasons for Judgment in relation to orders 1 and 2 above be published electronically from Chambers at a later date.
AND THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS pursuant to r.16.05(2)(e) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) that the word “first” appearing before the word “respondent” be deleted in order 1 of the orders made on 24 January 2017.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.