Ivory v Telstra Corporation Limited

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Ivory v Telstra Corporation Limited [2010] FCA 1361

Citation:		Ivory v Telstra Corporation Limited [2010] FCA 1361
Appeal from:		Ivory v Telstra Corporation Limited [2010] FMCA 123 Ivory v Telstra Corporation Limited (No 2) [2010] FMCA 432
Parties:		KENNETH CLYDE IVORY v TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED
File number:		QUD 282 of 2010
Judge:		DOWSETT J
Date of judgment:		10 November 2010
Date of hearing:	10 November 2010
Place:	Brisbane
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	10
Counsel for the Appellant:	The Appellant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr T Sullivan SC
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Mallesons Stephen Jaques

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	QUD 282 of 2010

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	KENNETH CLYDE IVORY Appellant
AND:	TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED Respondent

JUDGE:	DOWSETT J
DATE OF ORDER:	10 NOVEMBER 2010
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be summarily dismissed;

2.All documents relating to the appeal be sealed up and marked “Not to be opened other than pursuant to an order of a Judge of the Court’;

3.The notice of motion filed on 18 August 2010 be dismissed; and

4.The appellant pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal.

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 Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	QUD 282 of 2010

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	KENNETH CLYDE IVORY Appellant
AND:	TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED Respondent

JUDGE:	DOWSETT J
DATE:	10 NOVEMBER 2010
PLACE:	BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. I have before me two notices of motion concerning a document filed on 21 June 2010 which has been treated as a notice of appeal.  The purported appeal is from decisions of two separate magistrates made in the same proceedings at different times.

2. If the first decision is treated as being a final decision capable of appeal without leave, then the purported notice of appeal was out of time.  However I prefer not to deal with the matter on that basis.  There appears to have been an earlier attempted lodgement which may have been subject to inappropriate delay within the Court.  However the circumstances are unclear.

3. One of the notices of motion is by the respondent seeking dismissal of the appeal as incompetent.  The other notice of motion, filed by the appellant, seeks a stay of the orders made in the Magistrates Court and a bankruptcy notice, apparently to enable the appellant to make further inquiries in respect of certain matters, or so it appears from the appellant’s submissions today.  Although second in time, the respondent’s notice of motion goes to the competence of the appeal as a whole.  It seems appropriate that I deal with it first, notwithstanding the appellant’s objection to my adopting that course.

4. The notice of appeal is quite…