Janice Pareroultja v Robert Tickner

[1993] FCA 1084

rosf" , VD

JUDGMENT No. ...... ... n.*.r.e

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
1

NEW SOU	TH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	)	No.	G 40 of 1993
1

GENERAL DIVISION 1

BETWEEN :	JANICE PAREROULTJA, DULCIE JUKKADAI, IVY IMPU, CLIVE IMPU, BILLY PAREROULTJA, ELFREIDA UNGWANAKA. HERMAN MALBUNKA, FREDDY MALBUNKA, TROUGOT MALBUNKA , JOYCE MALBUNKA. TIMOTHY UNGWANAKA
Applicants

AND	ROBERT TICKNER
First respondent
KUNMANARA BREADEN AND MAX
STUART
Second respo

CORAM:	BEAUMONT J.
PLACE :	SYDNEY  OF AUSTMLlA
DATE :	26 FEBRUARY 1993

MINUTES OF ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS:

1. Direct that, within five days, the applicants file and serve their final draft of the case they seek to be stated.

Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

2.    Stand matter over to 8 March 1993 for judgment.

1. Reserve liberty to any party to apply, on such notice, if any as a Judge may allow, to restore the matter to the list for further argument before 8 March 1993.

   Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

1

NEW SOU TH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. G 40 of 1993

GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN :	JANICE PAREROULTJA. DULCIE JUKKADAI. IVY IMPU, CLIVE IMPU. BILLY PAREROULTJA, ELFREIDA UNGWANAKA. HERMAN MALBUNKA, FREDDY MALBUNKA, TROUGOT MALBUNKA . JOYCE MALBUNKA. TIMOTHY UNGWANAKA
Applicants

AND	ROBERT TICKNER
First respondent
KUNMANARA BREADEN AND MAX STUART
Second respondent

CORAM:	Beaumont J.
DATE :	26 February 1993

REASONS FOR DIRECTION

Australia Act, I have heard argument and read the written	Full Court pursuant to s.25(6) of the Federal Court of On the question whether I should state a case for a
submissions of the parties. Whilst I presently incline to the view that, in principle, the matters raised by the applicants in their preliminary draft stated case are appropriate as the subject of a stated case, the applicants have foreshadowed possible amendments to their preliminary draft stated case. I am of the opinion that I should not finally decide whether a
case should be stated until I know the necessary detail of the case sought to be stated, that is, until the applicants have submitted a final draft.
At one stage I had thought that it may have been possible to give the parties an indication whether, in principle, a case should be stated and, if so, I would then proceed to consider the detail of the case. Having been referred to the division of judicial opinion in the present area in Mabo v Queensland (1988) 166 CLR 186 (see per Mason C.J. at 195-6; cf. per Deane J. at 223) and in Frizziero v Rice, Full Federal Court, 16 October 1992, unreported, I have now formed the view that, in the present context, it is not practicable to pursue this course. That is to say, I am of the opinion that no decision, even in principle, should be made until the applicants have finally propounded their draft of the stated case.
In these circumstances, I propose to direct that, within five days, the applicants file and serve their final draft of the stated case. If necessary, I will hear further argument (orally or in writing if desired) at a time to be fixed but as soon as convenient, on the question (a) whether, in principle, the case as finally propounded by the applicants should be stated for a Full Court; and, if so, (b) the terms in which that case should be stated.
The matter is stood over for judgment, including the publication of reasons, on Monday 8 March 1993 at 2 .15 p.m. on question (a) above and, if that question is answered in the affirmative, on question (b) also.

I certify that this and the preceding two

( 2 ) pages are a true copy of the Reasons

for Directions herein of his Honour Mr.

Justice Be

Associate

Dated:  26 ~ebr* 1f93