Hamden v Campbell

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Hamden v Campbell [2012] FCA 65

Citation:

Hamden v Campbell [2012] FCA 65

Parties:

DAVID HAMDEN v KATHRYN CAMPBELL, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

File number:

SAD 255 of 2011

Judge:

LANDER J

Date of judgment:

3 February 2012

Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – discovery – application for particular discovery – application dismissed

Legislation:

Archives Act 1983 (Cth), s 24

Federal Court Rules 2011, r 20.14, r 20.15, r 20.21

Date of hearing:

3 February 2012

Place:

Adelaide

Division:

GENERAL DIVISION

Category:

Catchwords

Number of paragraphs:

11

Counsel for the Applicant:

The Applicant appeared in person

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr P d'Assumpcao

Solicitor for the Respondent:

Australian Government Solicitor

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	SAD 255 of 2011

BETWEEN:	DAVID HAMDEN Applicant
AND:	KATHRYN CAMPBELL, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES Respondent

JUDGE:	LANDER J
DATE OF ORDER:	3 FEBRUARY 2012
WHERE MADE:	ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicant’s application for particular discovery be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the interlocutory application.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	SAD 255 of 2011

BETWEEN:	DAVID HAMDEN Applicant
AND:	KATHRYN CAMPBELL, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES Respondent

JUDGE:	LANDER J
DATE:	3 FEBRUARY 2012
PLACE:	ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application pursuant to r 20.21 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Rules) for particular discovery.  This proceeding was commenced by an unrepresented applicant who seeks an order in the nature of mandamus directed to the Commonwealth to comply with a direction given by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) in relation to a particular document which was the subject of a proceeding before the AAT.

2. The AAT directed the Commonwealth, through Centrelink, to take steps to determine whether a Word document – which need not be described – that was superseded within Centrelink, can be found, or whether, like the email to which the particular document was attached, it has been purged from the email recipient’s inbox and from the backup server and no longer exists.  The applicant, Mr Hamden, contends that Centrelink, and more specifically the respondent, who is the Secretary of the Commonwealth Department that administers Centrelink, has not done what it was directed to do by the AAT, and has not conducted a proper search for the document.

3. Mr Hamden has issued subpoenas in the proceeding attempting to locate the document which is the subject matter of the proceeding itself.  In order to try to bring the matter to a head, on 20 December 2011 I made an order that the parties give discovery in accordance with the Rules.  The respondent responded in accordance with the direction and filed a list of documents on 17 January 2012.  The respondent filed a further list of documents on 23 January 2012, not for the purpose of identifying…