Huang v University of New South Wales & Anor - [2008] FMCA 1578

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HUANG v UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES & ANOR

[2008] FMCA 1578

HUMAN RIGHTS – PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Amendments to particulars of allegations – concurrent hearings of separate proceedings – reliance on evidence in other proceedings and in earlier stages of these proceedings – effect of order for new trial.

Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986, s.46PH
Federal Court Rules, Order 33 rule 5
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, r.15.15

CPSU, The Community & Public Sector Union v Telstra Corporation Ltd (No.2) [2001] FCA 479
Wentworth v Rogers (No.12) (1987) 9 NSWLR 400
Telnet Pty Ltd v Takapana Investments Pty Ltd (1994) 51 FCR 520

Applicant:

HONG CUI HUANG

First Respondent:

UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Second Respondent:

FUCHIN XIAO

File Number:

SYG 577 of 2008

Judgment of:

Cameron FM

Hearing dates:

8 October 2008, 18 November 2008

Date of Last Submission:

18 November 2008

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

24 November 2008

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant appeared in person.

Counsel for the First Respondent:

Ms J. Oakley

Solicitors for the First Respondent:

University of New South Wales Legal Office

The Second Respondent appeared in person.

ORDERS

The applicant have leave to amend within 28 days the particulars of her allegations against the second respondent as follows:
(a)substitute the existing paragraph 15 with the proposed paragraph 15 with the exception of the following portions of the proposed paragraph 15:
(i)the sixth sentence which commences “He showing me such …”;
(ii)in the fifteenth dot point under the heading “Particulars”, the words “and/or early session 1 of 2000”;
(iii)in the eighteenth dot point under the heading “Particulars”, the words “2000 and”; and
(iv)in the nineteenth dot point under the heading “Particulars”, the second and subsequent sentences;
(b)substitute the existing paragraph 16 with the proposed paragraph 16 with the exception of the following portions of the proposed paragraph 16:
(i)in the fifth sentence, the words “and/or early session 1 of 2000”;
(ii)in the sixth sentence, the words “on 3 and 30 August 2004” down to and including the words “by any men”;
(iii)in the “Particulars”, the whole of the first dot point;
(iv)in the third dot point under the heading “Particulars”, the words “and/or early session 2 of 2000” where appearing in the second sentence; and
(v)in the fourteenth dot point under the heading “Particulars”, the second and third sentences;
(c)substitute the existing paragraph 17 with the proposed paragraph 17;
(d)substitute the existing paragraph 18 with the proposed paragraph 18 with the exception of the following portions of the proposed paragraph 18:
(i)sub-paragraph (i);
(ii)in the first paragraph under the heading “Particulars”, the words “and/or early session 1 of 2000” where appearing in the first sentence; and
(iii)all paragraphs under the heading “Particulars” after the first sentence of paragraph 2(b).
The applicant have leave to file and serve on the first respondent a subpoena for production for employment records concerning the second respondent.
Orders 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 made on 11 March 2008 be vacated.
In all other respects, the applications in a case filed on 18 March 2008, 14 April 2008, 5 May 2008 and 14 November 2008 be refused.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 577 of 2008

HONG CUI HUANG

Applicant

And

UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES

First Respondent

FUCHIN XIAO

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

These proceedings were listed on 8 October 2008 to consider the applicant’s applications in a case filed on 18 March 2008, 7 April 2008, 14 April 2008 and 5 May 2008. On that day, it was agreed that the application in a case filed on 7 April 2008 had previously been determined by the Court. It was not further considered.
At the commencement of the hearing on 8 October 2008 the first respondent provided to the other parties and to the Court a written outline of submissions. The applicant thereupon sought an adjournment to another day in order to consider what was in that document. Although the application was not granted at that point, after the applicant had made her submissions on her applications of 18 March 2008, 14 April 2008 and 5 May 2008, and the respondents had had an opportunity to address the Court, the matter was adjourned until 18 November 2008 to give the applicant an opportunity to reflect on the first respondent’s submissions and to be in a position to reply to them.
In addition to written submissions in reply filed in court on 18 November 2008, the applicant also filed a further application in a case on 14 November 2008.

Procedural background

It is useful at this point to note that these proceedings are part of a wider collection of claims made by the applicant against the University of New South Wales (“UNSW”) and against various individuals who have had an association with UNSW.
The instant proceedings were originally part of proceedings SYG 1691 of 2003 (“original proceedings”) which involved three other parties. The claim against one of those parties, Mr Abayawickrama, has been removed into separate proceedings numbered SYG 2920 of 2004 which are discussed further at [28] below. The remaining claims made in the original proceedings were dismissed by Driver FM on 11 February 2008 and those proceedings are now concluded, although subject to a pending appeal.
The matters and claims which are the subject of these proceedings were dealt with separately by Driver FM and resulted in a judgment delivered on 16 May 2005. On 25 May 2006 Rares J allowed the applicant’s appeal from the 16 May 2005 judgment of Driver FM and, amongst other orders, made the following order:
(4)The order made by the Federal Magistrates Court on 16 May 2005 be set aside and in lieu thereof it be ordered that:
(1)    there be heard separately and apart from all other issues in the proceedings all questions of liability and damages relating to the issues raised in paragraphs 15-18 of the Particulars of My Application filed by the applicant on 29 October 2004 as between:
(a)    the applicant and the fifth respondent; and
(b)    the applicant and the first respondent in respect of any vicarious or other legal liability of the first respondent for any conduct of the fifth respondent the subject of question (a) above;
(2)    Order (1) take effect for the purposes of the proceedings as if it had been made on 10 March 2005.
Although this claim and these proceedings are now completely separated from the claims against the other parties with which they were initially joined in the original proceedings, the applicant has, nevertheless, raised here matters which properly relate to the other proceedings. Most recently this was done in the applicant’s application in a case filed on 14 November 2008. In that application, which was almost identical to an application in a case filed the same day in proceedings SYG 2920 of 2004, amongst other orders the applicant sought the stay of both proceedings pending decisions by the Federal Court on appeals from the judgment of Driver FM in the original proceedings and a decision of mine in proceedings SYG 2920 of 2004. However, as the former proceedings are independent of these proceedings, even if historically related, and the application for leave to appeal from my judgment in SYG 2920 of 2004 remains pending, it is appropriate to consider the applications in a case currently before the Court without delay, particularly given the age of some of them.

Factual background

The applicant is a former doctoral student at UNSW as was the second respondent.
By letter dated 31 October 2002 the applicant complained to the Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission (“Commission”) that the second respondent sexually harassed her. In her complaint the applicant said:
In August or September 2001, when I looked for help from the next door (room 119) to install a software of reading function from the Internet into my computer, one of the students, came to my computer and gave me the help. However, while he got into the Internet, he showed me sexual pictures in which there was naked man with woman who intended to have sex.
On 28 July 2003 a delegate of the Commission’s president terminated that complaint pursuant to s.46PH(1)(b) of the Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (“HREOC Act”). On 21 August 2003 the applicant filed her application commencing the original proceedings. Annexed to her application commencing those proceedings, and which must also be considered the first relevant document in these proceedings, the applicant expanded on that allegation by, amongst other things, alleging that the second respondent showed her internet pornography in 1999 and that she saw internet pornography on the second respondent’s computer screen in 2001. The applicant alleged that the “succession of sexual harassment events”, involving not only the second respondent but also the other respondents to the original proceedings, caused her extreme emotional and psychological stress.

Application in a case filed on 18 March 2008

By a document filed on 29 October 2004 in the original proceedings, the applicant particularised her allegations against the second respondent in four paragraphs numbered 15-18.
In her application in a case filed on 18 March 2008 the applicant seeks leave to amend paras.15-18 of the particulars of her allegations filed on 29 October 2004. This application was supported by an affidavit sworn and filed on 18 March 2008 and by written submissions filed on 22 April 2008. Presumably filed at the same time is an unsealed document entitled “Particulars of My Applications (amended for paragraph 15-18)” in which the applicant sets out the amendments she wishes to make to the particulars of her allegations against the second respondent.
As was pointed out by Finkelstein J in CPSU, The Community & Public Sector Union v Telstra Corporation Ltd (No.2) [2001] FCA 479, a new trial is a rehearing as if the case had never been heard before, and the parties are not bound by the manner in which they conducted the original trial. His Honour observed that at the rehearing the parties may improve their case by leading evidence that had not been led at the first trial or by putting forward new arguments. Even so, the terms of Rares J’s order of 25 May 2006 have the effect that the new trial is to be limited to the issues identified in the original paras.15-18 of the applicant’s particulars.
Particularly in proceedings such as these, where there are no pleadings and the applicant is unrepresented and litigating in a language which is not her first language, the definition of the issues by reference to the original particulars should not, in my view, be construed with a strictness which would be productive of unfairness. What the particulars paras.15-18 serve to do is to identify the essence of the claim made by the applicant against the second respondent and, through him, UNSW. While the applicant’s claim should not extend beyond the allegations identified in the original particulars, such a limitation should not prevent her from providing additional particulars of the essential allegations. Further, given the practical difficulties confronting the applicant in prosecuting these proceedings, and notwithstanding the fact that the proposed amendments go beyond the ordinary scope of particulars to include allegations and matters which are argumentative and/or irrelevant, it would be unreasonable to reject the document simply because it is not drawn as it would have been if prepared by counsel. Moreover, to do so, would offend the procedural goals of this Court set out in its statute.
In her written submissions filed in court on 18 November 2008 the applicant submitted that the issues raised in her application in a case filed on 18 March 2008 were a matter between her and Dr Xiao only and did not concern UNSW because that was the effect of the orders made by Rares J on 25 May 2006.
Ms Huang submitted that the effect of his Honour’s orders was that there were two separate proceedings now before the Court, one involving UNSW and another involving Dr Xiao with the effect that matters involving one did not involve the other. However, that misconstrues his Honour’s orders which were simply to the effect that the matters before him, being the claim against Dr Xiao and the claim against UNSW alleging vicarious liability for Dr Xiao’s conduct, were to be heard on a discrete basis and separately from the applicant’s other claims. Consequently, the applicant’s submissions to the contrary made on 18 November 2008 must be rejected.
Returning to a consideration of the proceedings as they are actually constituted and the matters considered at [11] – [14] above, the applicant will be granted leave to amend certain of the particulars of her allegations against the second respondent as follows:
Paragraph 15
a)substitute the existing paragraph 15 with the proposed paragraph 15 with the exception of the following portions of the proposed paragraph 15:
i)the sixth sentence which commences “He showing me such …”;
ii)in the fifteenth dot point under the heading “Particulars”, the words “and/or early session 1 of 2000”;
iii)in the eighteenth dot point under the heading “Particulars”, the words “2000 and”; and
iv)in the nineteenth dot point under the heading “Particulars”, the second and subsequent sentences;
Paragraph 16
b)substitute the existing paragraph 16 with the proposed paragraph 16 with the exception of the following portions of the proposed paragraph 16:
i)in the fifth sentence, the words “and/or early session 1 of 2000”;
ii)in the sixth sentence, the words “on 3 and 30 August 2004” down to and including the words “by any men”;
iii)in the “Particulars”, the whole of the first dot point;
iv)in the third dot point under the heading “Particulars”, the words “and/or early session 2 of 2000” where appearing in the second sentence; and
v)in the fourteenth dot point under the heading “Particulars”, the second and third sentences;
Paragraph 17
c)substitute the existing paragraph 17 with the proposed paragraph 17;
Paragraph 18
d)substitute the existing paragraph 18 with the proposed paragraph 18 with the exception of the following portions of the proposed paragraph 18:
i)sub-paragraph (i);
ii)in the first paragraph under the heading “Particulars”, the words “and/or early session 1 of 2000” where appearing in the first sentence; and
iii)all paragraphs under the heading “Particulars” after the first sentence of paragraph 2(b).
Generally
e)in all other respects, the application will be refused.

Applications in a case filed on 14 April 2008 and on 5 May 2008

As the application in a case filed on 5 May 2008 was intended to be by way of amendment of the application filed on 14 April 2008, the two applications in a case were considered together. The applicant submitted that aspects of these applications did not need to be considered because certain of them had been sought again in the application in a case filed on 14 November 2008. However, it is more convenient to deal with issues raised by the April and May 2008 applications in a case in the fashion in which they were made and, where necessary, consider the orders sought in the 14 November 2008 application in a case by reference to the earlier applications.
At the outset it should be noted that some of the orders sought relate to proceedings SYG 2920 of 2004 and will not be considered in any detail here.
In the applications filed on 14 April 2008 and on 5 May 2008 the applicant seeks an order that the evidence led before Driver FM at the first trial in these proceedings should be “adopted” in these proceedings, that being the oral evidence adduced in the earlier part of the proceedings, as well as the affidavits of her mother, her sister, a Ms Frank, various doctors and two of the respondents in the original proceedings which were filed in the earlier part of the proceedings or possibly the original proceedings. In support of this application the applicant points to the time and money which would be saved by taking such a course.
This Court does not have a rule equivalent to Order 33 rule 5 of the Federal Court Rules which provides:
Evidence in other proceedings
(1) A party may, with the leave of the Court, but saving all just exceptions, read evidence taken, or an affidavit filed, in other proceedings.
(2) Subrule (1) does not enable evidence taken, or an affidavit filed, in other proceedings to be read as evidence on any issue at a trial, except in relation to the proof of particular facts.
In Wentworth v Rogers (No.12) (1987) 9 NSWLR 400, when considering the equivalent rule in the former rules of the New South Wales Supreme Court, the New South Wales Court of Appeal said at 423 that it was difficult to understand what subr.(2) means although their Honours did say that subr.(1) allows evidence to be tendered only in proceedings between the same parties, or their privies, as were parties to the original proceedings and where the issues are the same.
However, as to the possibly confusing quality of subr.(2), in Telnet Pty Ltd v Takapana Investments Pty Ltd (1994) 51 FCR 520 Olney J said:
With respect, it may be that the Court of Appeal’s difficulty with the prohibition against reading evidence given in other proceedings “except in relation to the proof of particular facts” could be resolved if the subrule were construed as being limited in operation to circumstances in which the particular facts sought to be proved are first identified by the party seeking leave. The subrule distinguishes on the one hand between “any issue at a trial”, which I would understand to be a reference to an issue raised by the pleadings, and on the other, “the proof of particular facts”, which would seem to be a reference to the facts sought to be proved in order to establish the party’s case in respect of an issue.
In case it be later held that I have erred in my own understanding of the operation of subr (2), I indicate that for my own part I would be slow to exercise the discretion conferred by subr (1) without it being made known to the opposite party and to the Court what the particular facts are that the party seeking leave wishes to prove by the evidence given in an earlier proceeding and what are the issues as established by the pleadings to which those facts relate. Unless this is done the Court cannot reach a conclusion as to the relevance of the evidence sought to be admitted, nor can it judge whether that evidence is capable of providing proof of the facts sought to be proved. (at 524-525)
I respectfully adopt the approach expressed by Olney J as being applicable to this aspect of the applicant’s application, notwithstanding that this Court does not have a rule similar to Order 33 rule 5 of the Federal Court Rules.
The applicant has not identified the facts which she would seek to prove by reading at the new trial the earlier evidence. In such circumstances, I cannot reach a conclusion as to the relevance of the evidence sought to be adduced nor judge whether it is capable of providing the proof of whatever facts are sought to be proved. For these reasons, leave will not be granted to the applicant to rely, at the new trial, on oral evidence previously adduced.
However, that is not to say that the applicant may not read at the new trial any affidavit previously filed by her in the earlier stages of these proceedings. Those documents remain on the Court file and are able to be used as if the first trial had never occurred. Even so, given the confused history of these proceedings, she should re-serve the affidavits upon which she intends to rely.

As to the application for leave to file and serve a subpoena for production, leave is required as the applicant has already issued more than five subpoenas in the proceedings: r.15.15, Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001. UNSW submits that the applicant has already been granted leave to issue subpoenas addressed to it and that a very large number of documents have been produced and then some. UNSW further submits that there is no material before the Court that supports this particular application. However, the potential relevance of some of the documents in question is apparent from the nature of the proceedings themselves. The applicant seeks to fix UNSW with liability for conduct alleged against the second respondent. If some link between the respondents greater than that of teacher and student is demonstrated by the applicant, then that may assist her to make out that allegation. As far as it relates to employment records concerning the second respondent, the proposed subpoena clearly goes to an issue of potential relevance and, even though the applicant has issued more than five subpoenas, leave will be granted to her to seek the issue of a subpoena addressed to UNSW requiring production of its employment records in question. Such leave does not prevent UNSW from taking any proper objection to the actual terms of such a subpoena. However it is not apparent why the second respondent’s scholarship records, which the applicant also wishes to subpoena, could be relevant to the proceedings and the applicant has not addressed submissions to this point. In such circumstances, leave to subpoena such documents will not be granted.
In paragraph 5 of her application filed on 5 May 2008 the applicant seeks an order that these proceedings be heard at the same time as the proceedings SYG 2920 of 2004 which she has brought against Mr Abayawickrama, another former student at UNSW. These were referred to above at [5]. I am familiar with those other proceedings, in which I note UNSW is also a respondent, as they are in my docket. The matters alleged against the principal respondent in those proceedings and the second respondent in these proceedings are quite distinct, their only common feature being that the events alleged to have occurred are said to have occurred at UNSW. The proceedings involving

Mr Abayawickrama also started as part of the original proceedings and the matters alleged against him form part of the complaint to HREOC which was terminated on 28 July 2003. There is insufficient reason for the two proceedings to be heard together and the applicant’s application in this regard will be refused.
In paragraph 6 of her application filed on 5 May 2008 and paragraphs 6 and 8 of her application filed on 14 April 2008 the applicant seeks amendment of the procedural orders made on 11 March 2008 concerning the preparation of this matter for hearing. Those orders have since been overtaken by events and, in any event, have been ignored by the parties. Those orders will be vacated and fresh procedural orders made at the earliest opportunity.
The applicant also seeks an order that transcripts of the hearing of these proceedings be obtained and placed on the Court file. The applicant submitted that, at the conclusion of the new trial, she would wish to peruse a transcript of the proceedings before preparing her final submissions. She said that a transcript was too expensive for her to purchase and she wished the Court to do it instead. This is not a request to which the Court will accede. The cost of litigation is to be borne by the litigants or bodies providing litigation funding. The Court’s limited budget does not extend to the provision of transcripts to parties.
Paragraph 10 in each of the applications filed on 14 April 2008 and 5 May 2008 seeks an order that judgment in these proceedings be delivered at the same time as judgment is delivered in proceedings SYG 2920 of 2004. As advised to the applicant during submissions on 8 October 2008, the Court will not make such an order.
Paragraph 11 of the application of 5 May 2008 seeks an order the Court cannot make.
The applicant seeks an order dealing with the listing of the final hearing in this matter. It is premature to consider this issue.
Paragraph 13 of the application filed on 5 May 2008 seeks leave to issue subpoenas to give evidence. As no hearing date has been set it would be premature to consider this issue at this point.
Paragraph 14 of the application filed on 5 May 2008 foreshadows an application for leave to issue a subpoena which need not be considered at this point.
Paragraph 15 of the application filed on 5 May 2008 seeks orders against a person not a party to these proceedings and, for that reason, cannot be entertained.
Paragraph 16 of the application filed on 5 May 2008 seeks certain procedural orders which would be premature to make at this point.

Application in a case filed on 14 November 2008

Several of the orders sought in this application relate to proceedings SYG 2920 of 2004 and will not be considered in the context of these proceedings.
The application filed on 14 November 2008 sought the following orders relevant to these proceedings:
a)paragraph 1:
i)the Court “reserves” all the documents and applications in a case in proceedings SYG 2920 of 2004 and SYG 577 of 2008;
ii)no hearings be listed until the Federal Court gives its judgment in the applicant’s appeal from the decision of Driver FM of 11 February 2008;
iii)the Court hear these proceedings concurrently with proceedings SYG 2920 of 2004;
b)paragraph 2: the hearing listed for 18 November 2008 be vacated;
c)paragraph 3: the matters be returned to Driver FM;
d)paragraph 8: UNSW and its legal representatives be excused from attending the hearings in these proceedings until further order;
e)paragraph 9: UNSW be removed from the proceedings until further order;
f)paragraph 10: UNSW’s counsel should not represent the second respondent;
g)paragraph 11: the Court should reject submissions filed by UNSW in these proceedings and place them on UNSW’s file;
h)paragraph 12: UNSW bear its own costs of attending the hearings in these proceedings;
i)paragraph 13: the Court deal with some issues in chambers and some other matters be handled by the Registrar;
j)paragraph 14: these proceedings be heard at the same time as proceedings SYG 2920 of 2004;
k)paragraph 15: the Court hear the applicant’s claims against the second respondent under files SYG 577 of 2008, SYG 1691 of 2003 and SYG 2124 of 2004. The latter proceeding was also finalised by judgment of Driver FM on 11 February 2008 and is subject to an appeal pending in the Federal Court; and
l)paragraph 16: the Court vacate the order made on 8 October 2008 that documents filed in these proceedings be correctly headed and entitled.
Paragraphs 4 to 7 contain argumentative matter.
That aspect of proposed order 1 that the Court “reserves all the documents and all these applications in a case” in these proceedings and proceedings SYG 2920 of 2004 is obscure and unnecessary. In any event, it is for a party to serve the documents upon which that party wishes to rely; it is not for the Court to do this.
That part of order 1 which appears to seek a stay of all matters pending the Federal Court’s judgment on the appeal from the decision of Driver FM of 11 February 2008 is inappropriate to make given that it relates to the original proceedings which no longer are connected with these proceedings.
For the reasons given above at [28], the Court will not order that these proceedings be heard at the same time as proceedings SYG 2920 of 2004.
During the hearing on 18 November 2008, the application to vacate that hearing date was refused.
As to paragraph 3 which seeks remittal of the matter to Driver FM, his Honour has already twice ordered that he not continue to hear the applicant’s application and there is no basis on which I need disqualify myself from hearing these proceedings. Although the applicant has said in her affidavit filed on 14 November 2008 that I had “prejudice and prejudgment”, I reject that suggestion. This allegation was based on the applicant’s stated perception that any Federal Magistrate, including myself, but excluding Driver FM, would accord undue weight and significance to the submissions advanced by counsel for UNSW on the basis that, as compared with an unrepresented litigant, a legal representative would be afforded preferential treatment by this Court. It was explained to the applicant at the hearing that her concerns were misplaced and that legal representatives were afforded no preferential treatment.
Paragraphs 4 to 7 are argumentative and do not seek orders.
The order sought in paragraph 8, that UNSW and its legal representatives be excused from attending hearings in these proceedings, is misconceived for the reasons discussed above at [16]. UNSW is properly a party to these proceedings and ought to be present on each occasion the matter comes before the Court. Although on specific occasions it might be appropriate to excuse a party from the obligation of appearing, such a situation is not suggested by the current status of these proceedings and the orders sought will not be made.
The proposed order 9 would, on its face, suggest that the applicant wished to discontinue against UNSW. When this was put to the applicant on 18 November 2008 she disclaimed such an intention. It appears that proposed order 9 is based upon the misconception that Rares J had ordered that the applicant’s claims against the first and the second respondents be pursued in separate proceedings and she wished UNSW to be disassociated from her proceedings against Dr Xiao. For the reasons already discussed, this misconceives Rares J’s orders, would be impractical given that the applicant alleges that UNSW is vicariously liable for Dr Xiao’s conduct, and will not be made.
Proposed orders 10, 11 and 12 are based on the same misconception of Rares J’s orders and, therefore, will not be made. Further, proposed order 12 assumes that UNSW has been excused from attending hearings. Whatever orders may have been made in the original proceedings, UNSW has not been excused from attending any hearing since the matter was remitted to the Court as a result of the judgment of Rares J. For this additional reason, the order sought is misconceived.
Proposed order 13 is vague and uncertain and does not specify what sorts of orders ought to be made in chambers or by a Registrar. Whatever the case, the Court will deal with the disposition of the matter and its interlocutory stages and steps as is most convenient and appropriate.
For the reasons given above at [28] and because proceedings SYG 1691 of 2003 and SYG 2124 of 2004 are now concluded in this Court, the orders sought in paragraphs 14 and 15 will be refused.
As to proposed order 16, the orders made on 8 October 2008 concerning the proper presentation of documents lodged for filing in this Court do no more than enforce the Court’s rules. What the applicant proposes is a return to her former practice of lodging documents with multiple plaint numbers which refer to multiple parties, which can be filed in more than one proceeding and while having relevance for more than one proceeding are not entirely relevant to any one proceeding. Such conduct is productive of confusion and inefficiency even if it might provide some superficial convenience for the applicant. The order sought in paragraph 16 is refused.

Conclusion

For the above reasons, the following orders will be made in respect of the various applications in a case filed by the applicant.
As to the application in a case filed on 18 March 2008, the applicant have leave to amend within 28 days the particulars of her allegations against the second respondent as follows:
a)substitute the existing paragraph 15 with the proposed paragraph 15 with the exception of the following portions of the proposed paragraph 15:
i)the sixth sentence which commences “He showing me such …”;
ii)in the fifteenth dot point under the heading “Particulars”, the words “and/or early session 1 of 2000”;
iii)in the eighteenth dot point under the heading “Particulars”, the words “2000 and”; and
iv)in the nineteenth dot point under the heading “Particulars”, the second and subsequent sentences;
b)substitute the existing paragraph 16 with the proposed paragraph 16 with the exception of the following portions of the proposed paragraph 16:
i)in the fifth sentence, the words “and/or early session 1 of 2000”;
ii)in the sixth sentence, the words “on 3 and 30 August 2004” down to and including the words “by any men”;
iii)in the “Particulars”, the whole of the first dot point;
iv)in the third dot point under the heading “Particulars”, the words “and/or early session 2 of 2000” where appearing in the second sentence; and
v)in the fourteenth dot point under the heading “Particulars”, the second and third sentences;
c)substitute the existing paragraph 17 with the proposed paragraph 17;
d)substitute the existing paragraph 18 with the proposed paragraph 18 with the exception of the following portions of the proposed paragraph 18:
i)sub-paragraph (i);
ii)in the first paragraph under the heading “Particulars”, the words “and/or early session 1 of 2000” where appearing in the first sentence; and
iii)all paragraphs under the heading “Particulars” after the first sentence of paragraph 2(b);
e)in all other respects the application will be refused.
As to the applications in a case filed on 14 April 2008 and 5 May 2008:
a)the applicant have leave to file and serve on UNSW a subpoena for production for employment records concerning the second respondent;
b)orders 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 made on 11 March 2008 will be vacated.
c)in all other respects the applications in a case will be refused.
The application in a case filed on 14 November 2008 will be refused.

I certify that the preceding fifty-five (55) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Cameron FM

Associate:

Date: 24 November 2008