Gebadi v Woosup - [2017] FCA 347

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Gebadi v Woosup [2017] FCA 347

File number(s): QUD 244 of 2016

Judge(s): GREENWOOD J

Date of judgment: 3 April 2017

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – consideration of a question of whether the trial of the proceeding ought to be adjourned from 4 April 2017 and 5 April 2017 to provisional dates of 25 July 2017 and 26 July 2017

Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 37M and s 37P

Date of hearing: 3 April 2017

Date of last submissions: 3 April 2017

Registry: Queensland

Division: General Division

National Practice Area: Native Title

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 6

Counsel for the Applicants: Mr D O’Gorman SC

Solicitor for the Applicants: Miller Harris Lawyers

Counsel for the First Respondent: The first respondent appeared in person

ORDERS

QUD 244 of 2016

BETWEEN:
MARK GEBADI

First Applicant

TRACEY LUDWICK

Second Applicant

CATHERINE SALEE (and others named in the Schedule)

Third Applicant

AND:
LARRY WOOSUP

First Respondent

BEVERLEY TAMWOY (ALSO KNOWN AS BEVERLEY MAMOOSE)

Second Respondent

GULF ALUMINA LTD (ACN 108 086 371) (and another named in the Schedule)

Third Respondent

JUDGE:

GREENWOOD J

DATE OF ORDER:

3 APRIL 2017

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The listing for hearing on 4 April 2017 and 5 April 2017 is adjourned.
2.The proceedings be provisionally listed for trial on 25 July 2017 and 26 July 2017 in Cairns at 10.15am.
3.The costs thrown away by reason of the adjournment are reserved for later determination.
4.Pursuant to s 23 and s 37P of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), rule 1.32 and rule 1.36 of the Federal Court Rules 2011, these orders and the reasons for judgment in support of these orders are made and published from Chambers.

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
GREENWOOD J:

These proceedings have been set for trial on Tuesday, 4 April 2017 and Wednesday, 5 April 2017. This morning a case management hearing took place in order to address matters relating to the trial. The proceeding is concerned with a claim for a declaration that particular agreements are not binding upon the applicants. The applicants also seek a declaration that the first respondent, Mr Larry Woosup and the second respondent, Ms Beverley Tamwoy, breached the duties they owe to a native title claim group described as the Ankamuthi People. The contention is that these respondents breached the relevant duties by entering into a particular agreement and by receiving on their own behalf financial benefits paid pursuant to a document described as the “Purported Ancillary Agreement”. The applicants seek a declaration that the financial benefits received by the first and second respondents are held for and on behalf of the Ankamuthi People. They seek an order that the first and second respondents account for the financial benefits they received and an order that they pay to the Ankamuthi claim group an amount of $370,000.00.
The first and second…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Gebadi v Woosup

Details

AGLC: Gebadi v Woosup [2017] FCA 347
Case: [2017] FCA 347
Decision Date: 3 April 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Gebadi v Woosup involves a procedural matter concerning the adjournment of a scheduled hearing from 4 April 2017 and 5 April 2017 to provisional dates of 25 July 2017 and 26 July 2017. The case was heard by the Federal Court of Australia, where Justice Bromberg presided over the application. The applicant, Gebadi, sought an adjournment of the trial dates due to circumstances that necessitated a delay in proceeding with the trial as initially scheduled.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial of the proceeding should indeed be adjourned from the originally set dates to the proposed provisional dates. The court had to consider the necessity of the adjournment and the potential impact on the administration of justice, including the interests of both parties and the efficient use of court resources. The applicant's request for adjournment was based on specific reasons that warranted consideration, such as the availability of key witnesses or other logistical issues impacting the ability to proceed with the trial as planned.

In determining the application, Justice Bromberg considered the principles of fairness and the efficient administration of justice. The court acknowledged the applicant's reasons for the adjournment and found that the circumstances were such that an adjournment was warranted. The court accepted that the proposed provisional dates would allow for the continuation of the trial in a manner that would be just and efficient. Accordingly, the court granted the application for adjournment and set the new trial dates. The costs associated with the adjournment were reserved for later determination.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The listing for hearing on 4 April 2017 and 5 April 2017 is adjourned.

2. The proceedings be provisionally listed for trial on 25 July 2017 and 26 July 2017 in Cairns at 10.15am.

3. The costs thrown away by reason of the adjournment are reserved for later determination.

4. Pursuant to s 23 and s 37P of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), rule 1.32 and rule 1.36 of the Federal Court Rules 2011, these orders and the reasons for judgment in support of these orders are made and published from Chambers.

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.

File number(s):	QUD 244 of 2016
Judge(s):	GREENWOOD J
Date of judgment:	3 April 2017
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – consideration of a question of whether the trial of the proceeding ought to be adjourned from 4 April 2017 and 5 April 2017 to provisional dates of 25 July 2017 and 26 July 2017
Legislation:	Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 37M and s 37P
Date of hearing:	3 April 2017
Date of last submissions:	3 April 2017
Registry:	Queensland
Division:	General Division
National Practice Area:	Native Title
Category:	Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	6
Counsel for the Applicants:	Mr D O’Gorman SC
Solicitor for the Applicants:	Miller Harris Lawyers
Counsel for the First Respondent:	The first respondent appeared in person