FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| FAZIO v CENTRELINK | [2008] FMCA 594 |
| PRACTICE & PROCEDURE − Adjournment − general principles − medical condition − other litigation − request for documents − self-representation − alleged oppression by Respondent. PRACTICE & PROCEDURE − Request for pro-bono referral − consideration of factors relevant to referral. |
| Federal Magistrates Act, 1999 (Cth), ss.3, 42, 45 Federal Magistrates Court Rules, 2001 (Cth), rr.1.03, 12.03, 14.02 Judiciary Act, 1903 (Cth), s.39B |
| Goodall v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2007] FMCA 218 Pickering v Centrelink [2008] FCA 561 Abrahams v Qantas Airways Limited (No 2) (2007) 210 FLR 314; [ 2007] FMCA 639 Balding v Ten Talents Pty Ltd (2007) 162 IR 17; [2007] FMCA 145 Bartucciotto v Western Health Care & Ors (2007) 94 ALD; [2007] FMCA 26 MahmoudvOwners of Strata Plan 811 (No 2) [2006] FMCA 1711 Myers v Myers [1969] WAR 19 State of Queensland & Anor v JL Holdings Pty Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 146 |
| Applicant: | ARTURO FAZIO |
| Respondent: | CENTRELINK |
| File Number: | PEG 33 of 2008 |
| Judgment of: | Lucev FM |
| Hearing date: | 2 May 2008 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 2 May 2008 |
| Delivered at: | Perth |
| Delivered on: | 2 May 2008 |
REPRESENTATION
| Applicant: | No appearance |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Ms S Oliver |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Australian Government Solicitor |
ORDERS
That the application in the case for summary dismissal of the application be adjourned to 2.15 pm on 14 July 2008.
That the application be adjourned pending the outcome of the hearing of the application in the case on 14 July 2008.
The Applicant is referred to the Registrar under rule 12.03 of the Federal Magistrate Court Rules 2001 for referral to a lawyer on the pro bono panel for legal assistance. That assistance is to include:
(a)advice in relation to the summary dismissal application;
(b)the drafting or settling of documents to be filed or used in the summary dismissal application; and
(c)representation generally in the conduct of the summary dismissal application.
Costs to be reserved.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PERTH |
PEG 33 of 2008
| ARTURO FAZIO |
Applicant
And
| CENTRELINK |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(EX TEMPORE EDITED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT)
Application
By application on 22 April 2008, the Respondent applies to dismiss the substantive application made by the Applicant, originally to the Federal Court in April 2007 and transferred to this Court in February 2008. The application for adjournment of the summary dismissal application was made by the Respondent by notice prior to a directions hearing listed for the substantive application on 28 April 2008. When that directions hearing came on, the Court dealt both with the substantive matter, which was adjourned pending hearing of the summary dismissal application, and also the adjournment application. The Court made orders which included requiring the Applicant to file and serve his written outline of submissions in relation to the Respondent’s summary dismissal application by 4 pm on 30 April 2008 and also to make any application for adjournment of the hearing, formally, by noon…
Continue reading Fazio v Centrelink
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Fazio v Centrelink [2008] FMCA 594
- Case
- [2008] FMCA 594
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court needed to determine whether the application for an adjournment was justified given Fazio's medical condition and the nature of the legal issues involved. Additionally, the court had to consider whether Fazio qualified for a pro bono referral based on the factors outlined in the Federal Magistrate Court Rules 2001. The court evaluated the merits of the adjournment request and the necessity for legal assistance in light of the complexity of the case and Fazio's self-representation.
In its reasoning, the court found that an adjournment was warranted to allow Fazio to obtain pro bono legal assistance. The court acknowledged Fazio's medical condition and the potential for oppression by Centrelink, which warranted a fair opportunity to present his case. The court concluded that referring Fazio to a pro bono lawyer would facilitate a fair hearing and ordered the application to be adjourned pending the outcome of the hearing. The court also ordered that Fazio be referred to the Registrar for pro bono assistance and reserved costs for later determination.
The final orders included an adjournment of the application to 2.15 pm on 14 July 2008, a referral to a pro bono lawyer for legal assistance, and a reservation of costs. This decision ensured that Fazio would receive necessary legal support, allowing for a fair and just hearing of his application.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
That the application in the case for summary dismissal of the application be adjourned to 2.15 pm on 14 July 2008.
2.
That the application be adjourned pending the outcome of the hearing of the application in the case on 14 July 2008.
3.
The Applicant is referred to the Registrar under rule 12.03 of the Federal Magistrate Court Rules 2001 for referral to a lawyer on the pro bono panel for legal assistance. That assistance is to include:
(a) advice in relation to the summary dismissal application;
(b) the drafting or settling of documents to be filed or used in the summary dismissal application; and
(c) representation generally in the conduct of the summary dismissal application.
4.
Costs to be reserved.
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.