Fuchs v Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation
[2015] FCA 1038
•31 July 2015
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Fuchs v Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation
[2015] FCA 1038
Citation: Fuchs v Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation [2015] FCA 1038 Parties: ALEXANDER MICHAEL FUCHS v AUSTRALIAN NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ORGANISATION (ANSTO) File number: NSD 726 of 2015 Judge: RARES J Date of judgment: 31 July 2015 Legislation: Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) Date of hearing: 31 July 2015 Place: Sydney Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: No Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 7 Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant did not appear
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
NSD 726 of 2015
BETWEEN: ALEXANDER MICHAEL FUCHS
ApplicantAND: AUSTRALIAN NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ORGANISATION (ANSTO)
Respondent
JUDGE:
RARES J
DATE OF ORDER:
31 JULY 2015
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application be dismissed for default of appearance.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
NSD 726 of 2015
BETWEEN: ALEXANDER MICHAEL FUCHS
ApplicantAND: AUSTRALIAN NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ORGANISATION (ANSTO)
Respondent
JUDGE:
RARES J
DATE:
31 JULY 2015
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(REVISED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT)
This is the first return date of these proceedings. The matter has been called outside the court three times and no one has appeared.
The applicant commenced the proceedings under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) by filing an originating application on 22 June 2015 that was initially given a return date of 29 July 2015. However, on 24 June 2015, the National Allocations Coordinator emailed the applicant at the email address that he provided in his originating application, advising him that the proceedings had instead been listed for a case management hearing today at 9.30 am. The coordinator noted that the respondent had not yet filed a notice of address for service with the Court and asked that the applicant bring the change in listing date to its attention. She asked the applicant to send her a confirmatory email.
On 28 July 2015, the coordinator sent a further email to the applicant noting that he had not responded to her earlier email and that she also left a message on his phone asking him to confirm receipt of the email of 24 June 2015 as soon as possible. Later on the afternoon of 28 July 2015, the applicant and the coordinator appear to have spoken by phone as emerges from the coordinator’s email to him of 29 July 2015.
On 30 July 2015, the applicant replied asserting that he had not received the email of, as he asserted, 24 July 2015, regarding change in the listing date to today. He wrote:
After we spoke I inquired with my support person if they may be able to attend on the 31st instead. However, they cannot and I will therefore have to request for the meeting to be adjourned until another day. As you may also remember, I had expressed my astonishment that the day for the meeting had changed and with this, the judge had originally been assigned this case. My understanding was such, that the judge is appointed during the original listings step (date TBA) and remains in charge of the case until right to the end, closing of the files.
The applicant then asked the coordinator for more information about the docket system. Later yesterday afternoon, the coordinator emailed the applicant advising him that his request for an adjournment had not been granted and the matter remained listed before me today.
The applicant gave no basis for an adjournment of this matter. The applicant gave no explanation as to why he was unable personally to attend Court. All he stated was that his support person was not available to be here today. The respondent has not entered any appearance and I infer that it may not have been served.
In the circumstances, in default of the applicant’s appearance and any explanation for that, there is no basis on which the matter should remain in the Court. I dismiss the proceedings for default of appearance.
I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Rares. Associate:
Dated: 18 September 2015
0
0
1