Halit v Spotless Services Ltd

[2008] FCA 1483

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Halit v Spotless Services Ltd [2008] FCA 1483

AMANDA HALIT v SPOTLESS SERVICES LTD AND ALISON THEOBALD
NSD 190 OF 2007

COWDROY J
1 OCTOBER 2008
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 190 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

AMANDA HALIT
Applicant

AND:

SPOTLESS SERVICES LTD
First Respondent

ALISON THEOBALD
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	COWDROY J
DATE OF ORDER:	1 OCTOBER 2008
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed pursuant to O 35A r 3(1) of the Federal Court Rules (Cth).

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 190 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

AMANDA HALIT
Applicant

AND:

SPOTLESS SERVICES LTD
First Respondent

ALISON THEOBALD
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	COWDROY J
DATE:	1 OCTOBER 2008
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant’s application was filed on 12 February 2007 and came before the Court for first directions on 13 March 2007. There was no appearance by either party on that occasion. Accordingly, the proceeding was stood out of the list. The Court ordered that the proceeding was not to be re-listed until an affidavit of service was filed.

2. As at September 2008 no steps had been taken in the proceeding. On 8 September 2008 the Court sent a letter to the applicant at the address nominated in her application requesting information concerning the progress of the matter. The letter was returned to the Court on 10 September 2008 with a notation on the envelope that read ‘Left address/Unknown’.

3. The Court also made attempts to contact the applicant by telephone. Such attempts were unsuccessful.

4. Accordingly, the Court has no way of communicating with the applicant.

5. On 16 September 2008 the Court contacted Paul Morris of the first respondent’s legal team. Mr Morris confirmed that he had no recollection of service of the application. The Court forwarded a copy of the application to him on 16 September 2008. Mr Morris was informed that the matter had been listed for directions on 1 October 2008 and that in the interest of avoiding unnecessary costs it was not necessary for the respondents to appear at such directions hearing.

6. It is apparent that the application has never been served. The Court finds that the applicant has failed to prosecute the proceeding with due diligence within the meaning of O 35A r 2(1)(f) of the Federal Court Rules (Cth). The applicant is accordingly in default. The Court orders that the application be dismissed pursuant to O 35A r 3(1) of the Federal Court Rules.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Cowdroy.

Associate:

Dated:        3 October 2008

Counsel for the Applicant:	No appearance.
Counsel for the Respondents:	No appearance.
Date of Hearing:	1 October 2008
Date of Judgment:	1 October 2008