Ibrahim v Wu (No 2)

Case [2009] FCA 1151

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Ibrahim v Wu (No 2) [2009] FCA 1151

TAREK IBRAHIM v JINGSHAN WU and UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

WAD 101 of 2009

SIOPIS J
24 SEPTEMBER 2009
PERTH


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

WAD 101 of 2009
BETWEEN:

TAREK IBRAHIM
Applicant
AND:

JINGSHAN WU
First Respondent

UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Second 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 101 of 2009
BETWEEN:

TAREK IBRAHIM
Applicant
AND:

JINGSHAN WU
First Respondent

UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Second 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 Wu [2009] FCA 1083). Mr Ibrahim opposes the Court making directions for the further progress of the proceeding.

  2. For the reasons set out in Ibrahim v Carroll (No 2) [2009] FCA 1150, I dismiss Mr Ibrahim’s application to stay the further progress of this proceeding.

I certify that the preceding two (2) 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 First and Second Respondents:

Ms KE Primrose
Solicitor for the First and Second Respondents: Jackson McDonald
Date of Hearing: 24 September 2009
Date of Judgment: 24 September 2009
Details
AGLC
Ibrahim v Wu (No 2) [2009] FCA 1151
Case
[2009] FCA 1151
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ibrahim v Wu (No 2) involved an applicant seeking an indefinite stay of proceedings against a respondent. The nature of the dispute was related to potential privacy law violations under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The applicant had previously sought an oral application for the proceedings to be indefinitely stayed on the basis of privacy concerns.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's concerns about potential privacy law breaches were sufficient grounds for staying the proceedings indefinitely. The court was required to balance the applicant's privacy concerns against the need to allow the proceedings to progress to determine the merits of the claim. The court also had to consider the appropriate procedural steps the applicant should take to properly present his claim under the Privacy Act.

In delivering the judgment, the court dismissed the applicant's application for an indefinite stay, noting that the applicant had not provided sufficient grounds to warrant such a measure. The court acknowledged the importance of privacy rights but held that the applicant's concerns were not compelling enough to warrant an indefinite stay. Instead, the court directed the applicant to file and serve a statement of claim by a specified date, outlining the basis of his claim and the relevant provisions of the Privacy Act. The court ordered that costs be awarded in the cause, indicating that the applicant would bear the costs associated with the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

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:

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

SIOPIS J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: SIOPIS J

Full text does not contain this section.