Ibrahim v Carroll (No 2)

[2009] FCA 1150

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Ibrahim v Carroll (No 2) [2009] FCA 1150

TAREK IBRAHIM v WILLIAM MACEWAN CARROLL

WAD 97 of 2009

SIOPIS J
24 SEPTEMBER 2009
PERTH

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	WAD 97 of 2009

BETWEEN:	TAREK IBRAHIM Applicant
AND:	WILLIAM MACEWAN CARROLL Respondent

JUDGE:	SIOPIS J
DATE OF ORDER:	24 SEPTEMBER 2009
WHERE MADE:	PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicant’s oral application that this proceeding be indefinitely stayed is dismissed.

2.By 4:00 pm on 15 October 2009, the applicant is to file and serve a statement of claim, setting out the basis of his claim and the provisions of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) upon which he relies for the relief claimed.

3.Costs are in the cause.

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

The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court’s website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	WAD 97 of 2009

BETWEEN:	TAREK IBRAHIM Applicant
AND:	WILLIAM MACEWAN CARROLL Respondent

JUDGE:	SIOPIS J
DATE:	24 SEPTEMBER 2009
PLACE:	PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application which Mr Ibrahim has made orally today to stay any further conduct of this proceeding until such time as he has made an application for leave to appeal and that application for leave to appeal has been determined.  Mr Ibrahim has advised me that he intends to seek leave to appeal from the decision which I handed down earlier today whereby I refused to disqualify myself from continuing to case manage this proceeding (Ibrahim v Carroll [2009] FCA 1082). Mr Ibrahim opposes the Court making directions for the further progress of the proceeding.

2. In my view, there are no circumstances which attend this case which would justify the making of any order staying the further progress of this proceeding pending the outcome of any application for leave to appeal that Mr Ibrahim may bring.

3. The proceeding has been on foot for some time now and no progress has been made in its resolution, other than the discussion that occurred between the parties after the first directions hearing.  In particular, there has been no formal progress made in the sense that no pleadings have been filed.  I am not aware of the legal basis on which the applicant brings his claim and I am not satisfied as to whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear the application.  Until such time as these matters are clarified, no substantive progress can be made in the proceeding.

4. In those circumstances, it is, in my view, in accordance with good case management practice, that Mr Ibrahim should outline the basis on which he formulates his claim.  That would assist in determining whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine his claim.

5. Mr Ibrahim’s application for leave to appeal can proceed alongside the direction that he file and serve a statement of claim outlining the basis of his claim.  If Mr Ibrahim succeeds in getting leave to appeal, he can then apply to the judge who hears that application, to stay any orders which I have made in the interim.

6. Accordingly, I reject Mr Ibrahim’s oral application to stay the further progress of this proceeding.

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

Associate:

Dated:       8 October 2009

Counsel for the Applicant:	The applicant appeared in person.
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr DJ Bourke
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Clayton Utz

Date of Hearing:	24 September 2009
Date of Judgment:	24 September 2009