Finch v Heat Group Pty Ltd (No 2)

Case [2015] FCA 88

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Finch v Heat Group Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] FCA 88

Citation: Finch v Heat Group Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] FCA 88
Parties: JO-ANNE FINCH v THE HEAT GROUP PTY LTD (ACN 092 941 430), GILLIAN FRANKLIN, PETER KADLECIK, ADAM WHITE, JOHN SIMCOCKS and DARREN SCOTTI
File number: VID 704 of 2012
Judge: JESSUP J
Date of judgment: 5 February 2015
Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 1.4 and 5.23
Date of hearing: 5 February 2015
Place: Melbourne
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 9
Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondents: M Felman
Solicitor for the Respondents: Minter Ellison

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 704 of 2012
BETWEEN:

JO-ANNE FINCH
Applicant
AND:

THE HEAT GROUP PTY LTD (ACN 092 941 430)
First Respondent

GILLIAN FRANKLIN
Second Respondent

PETER KADLECIK
Third Respondent

ADAM WHITE
Fourth Respondent

JOHN SIMCOCKS
Fifth Respondent

DARREN SCOTTI
Sixth Respondent

JUDGE:

JESSUP J

DATE OF ORDER:

5 FEBRUARY 2015

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Subject to the following orders, the further conduct of this proceeding be stayed until further order of the Court.

2.Any application by the applicant for the lifting of the said stay be filed by 4:00 pm on 2 March 2015, be returnable at 9:30 am on 5 March 2015 and be supported by a certificate of a medical practitioner:

(a)stating that, notwithstanding the statement of Dr Byron Rigby dated 8 March 2014, the applicant is able, without risk to her health and without risk of the consequences of participation in court proceedings referred to by Dr Rigby:

(i)to provide her solicitor and counsel with instructions sufficient for them, on her behalf, to conduct a case in court involving the allegations set out in her Further Amended Statement of Claim filed on 7 October 2014; and

(ii)should it be necessary, to represent herself in the conduct of that case; and

(b)stating his or her opinion as to the mental state of the applicant on 5 February 2015 and whether, on that day, she was in a condition to represent herself in court.

3.If the said stay has not been lifted by 5 March 2015, subject to any further order made on proper cause demonstrated, this proceeding stands dismissed pursuant to rules 1.40(a) and 5.23(1)(b) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).

4.The further hearing of the respondents' interlocutory application filed on 28 November 2014 be adjourned to a date to be fixed.

5.Costs be reserved. 

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 704 of 2012
BETWEEN:

JO-ANNE FINCH
Applicant
AND:

THE HEAT GROUP PTY LTD (ACN 092 941 430)
First Respondent

GILLIAN FRANKLIN
Second Respondent

PETER KADLECIK
Third Respondent

ADAM WHITE
Fourth Respondent

JOHN SIMCOCKS
Fifth Respondent

DARREN SCOTTI
Sixth Respondent

JUDGE:

JESSUP J

DATE:

5 FEBRUARY…

Continue reading Finch v Heat Group Pty Ltd (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Finch v Heat Group Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] FCA 88
Case
[2015] FCA 88
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Finch v Heat Group Pty Ltd (No 2) involves the plaintiff, Ms Finch, and the defendant, Heat Group Pty Ltd, in a legal dispute that was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. Ms Finch, who has significant health issues, initiated proceedings against Heat Group Pty Ltd, alleging various claims including breach of contract, negligence, and misleading or deceptive conduct. The case has been the subject of multiple hearings, with issues surrounding Ms Finch's capacity to participate in the litigation due to her health conditions.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the proceedings should be stayed pending the resolution of Ms Finch's health status and the capacity to participate in the litigation. The court had to determine if Ms Finch was fit to provide instructions to her legal representatives and, if necessary, to represent herself in court. Additionally, the court needed to consider the implications of Ms Finch's health on the conduct of the proceedings and whether it was in the interests of justice to proceed or stay the case.

The court's reasoning focused on the necessity to ensure that Ms Finch could participate meaningfully in the proceedings. The court acknowledged the potential prejudice to both parties if Ms Finch was unable to engage in the litigation due to her health conditions. The court required a medical certificate from a practitioner, confirming Ms Finch's fitness to participate in the case as of a specified date. The certificate had to address her ability to provide instructions and, if necessary, represent herself, as well as her mental state on that date. The court also outlined the procedural steps for any application to lift the stay, including the timing and content of the medical certificate. The court emphasised that the stay was not intended to be indefinite and set a deadline for the lifting of the stay or dismissal of the case if not met.

The final orders of the court included a stay of the proceedings until further order, with specific requirements for any application to lift the stay. The court mandated that any such application must be supported by a relevant medical certificate and set a deadline for the application and a subsequent hearing. If the stay was not lifted by the specified date, the court reserved the right to dismiss the proceedings. The court also adjourned the hearing of the respondents' interlocutory application and reserved costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Subject to the following orders, the further conduct of this proceeding be stayed until further order of the Court.

2. Any application by the applicant for the lifting of the said stay be filed by 4:00 pm on 2 March 2015, be returnable at 9:30 am on 5 March 2015 and be supported by a certificate of a medical practitioner:

(a) stating that, notwithstanding the statement of Dr Byron Rigby dated 8 March 2014, the applicant is able, without risk to her health and without risk of the consequences of participation in court proceedings referred to by Dr Rigby:

(i) to provide her solicitor and counsel with instructions sufficient for them, on her behalf, to conduct a case in court involving the allegations set out in her Further Amended Statement of Claim filed on 7 October 2014; and

(ii) should it be necessary, to represent herself in the conduct of that case; and

(b) stating his or her opinion as to the mental state of the applicant on 5 February 2015 and whether, on that day, she was in a condition to represent herself in court.

3. If the said stay has not been lifted by 5 March 2015, subject to any further order made on proper cause demonstrated, this proceeding stands dismissed pursuant to rules 1.40(a) and 5.23(1)(b) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).

4. The further hearing of the respondents' interlocutory application filed on 28 November 2014 be adjourned to a date to be fixed.

5. Costs be reserved.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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.