Freeman v State of Victoria

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Freeman v State of Victoria [2018] FCA 797

File number:

VID 782 of 2015

Judge:

MOSHINSKY J

Date of judgment:

24 May 2018

Catchwords:

HUMAN RIGHTS – disability discrimination – application by litigation representative for approval of a settlement – whether settlement should be approved – applicable principles – settlement approved

Legislation:

Federal Court Rules 2011, rr 9.70, 9.71

Cases cited:

Gillespie v Alperstein [1964] VR 749

Koenders v State of Victoria (Department of Education and Training) [2016] FCA 842

Modra v State of Victoria (Department of Human Services Victoria) [2013] FCA 1041

Re Barbour’s Settlement; National Westminster Bank Ltd v Barbour [1974] 1 All ER 1188

Scandolera v Victoria (Department of Education and Early Childhood Development) (2015) 331 ALR 525

Date of hearing:

24 May 2018

Registry:

Victoria

Division:

General Division

National Practice Area:

Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights

Category:

Catchwords

Number of paragraphs:

18

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr DJ Hancock

Solicitor for the Applicant:

Arnold Thomas & Becker

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr CP Young

Solicitor for the Respondent:

MinterEllison

ORDERS

VID 782 of 2015

BETWEEN:

CHARLI FREEMAN (BY HER NEXT FRIEND CRAIG FREEMAN)

Applicant

AND:

STATE OF VICTORIA (DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING)

Respondent

JUDGE:	MOSHINSKY J
DATE OF ORDER:	24 MAY 2018

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Subject to paragraph 2, pursuant to r 9.70 of the Federal Court Rules 2011, the settlement of this proceeding set out in the Settlement Deed marked as annexure “JR1” to the affidavit of Joseph Thomas Ridley affirmed on 18 May 2018 (the Settlement Deed) be approved.

2.If the Senior Master of the Supreme Court makes an order under r 79.10(2) of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) that the settlement monies set out in the Settlement Deed be held in court for the benefit of the applicant:

(a)The respondent shall pay the settlement monies to the Senior Master for the benefit of the applicant; and

(b)The applicant has leave to file a notice of discontinuance of this proceeding with no order as to costs.  For the avoidance of doubt, this constitutes an order otherwise for the purposes of r 26.12(7).

3.If the Senior Master of the Supreme Court does not make the order described in paragraph 2 by 24 July 2018, the matter be listed for case management on a date to be fixed.

4.The requirement in r 9.71(2)(c) that the interlocutory application be accompanied by an opinion of a lawyer who is “independent” be dispensed with.

5.Pursuant to s 37AG of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), on the ground that it is necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice, annexures “JR1” and “JR2” to the affidavit of Joseph Thomas Ridley affirmed on 18 May 2018 are to be treated as confidential and are not to be accessed without the permission of a Judge of the Court.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court…