Jorgensen v Wilson
[2022] ACTSC 281
•13 October 2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | Jorgensen v Wilson |
Citation: | [2022] ACTSC 281 |
Hearing Date: | 13 October 2022 |
DecisionDate: | 13 October 2022 |
Before: | McCallum CJ |
Decision: | (1) Dismiss the notice of appeal from the decision of the Registrar given 5 October 2022. (2) Extend the time within which the plaintiff can comply with order 1 made by the Registrar on 9 September 2022 to 24 November 2022. (3) Extend the time for compliance by the defendants with order 2 to 8 December 2022. (4) The Court book is also to be served by 8 December 2022. (5) The hearing date before Mossop J is confirmed. |
Catchwords: | PROCEDURE — SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE — Application to dismiss proceedings — Application filed before defence — Appeal from Registrar’s decision listing application for hearing — Whether defendants must file defence to the proceedings before the application is heard |
Legislation Cited: | Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), rr 40, 425, 1147 |
Parties: | Alan Jorgensen (Plaintiff) Cheryl Wilson (First Defendant) Graham Ashworth (Second Defendant) Ailsa Wilson (Third Defendant) Graeme Donald (Fourth Defendant) |
Representation: | Counsel Self-represented (Plaintiff) T Gaffney (Defendants) |
| Solicitors Ashurst Australia (Defendants) | |
File Number: | SC 165 of 2021 |
McCALLUM CJ:
In this matter, the plaintiff has commenced proceedings against four former officers of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. The proceedings were commenced by originating application filed 25 May 2022. By application filed 19 August 2022, supported by an affidavit of the same date, the defendants seek orders pursuant to rr 40, 425 and 1147 of the Court Procedure Rules 2006 (ACT), or alternatively the Court’s inherent jurisdiction, to have the proceedings dismissed or permanently stayed on the basis that they constitute an abuse of the Court’s processes or are otherwise frivolous, scandalous, unnecessary, vexatious or disclose no reasonable cause of action.
That application was the subject of a directions hearing on 9 September 2022 at which the Registrar made directions for the preparation of the matter for hearing and listed it before Mossop J on 13 February 2023. Mr Jorgensen, the plaintiff, subsequently filed a notice of appeal against the directions made that day. He has, in his notice of appeal, set out in tendentious terms his complaints about the directions made by the Registrar, contending that he is entitled first to have a defence in the proceedings before the defendants should be entitled to have their application heard.
Mr Jorgenson’s position is based on a misconception. As I have endeavoured to explain to him today, r 40 permits a party to seek to challenge the Court’s jurisdiction to hear a matter before being required to file a defence. Indeed, it is well established that where a question arises as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the Court is obliged to determine that question before requiring any party to take any step in the proceedings.
For those reasons, I make the following orders:
(1) That the notice of appeal from the Registrar dated 5 October 2022 is dismissed.
(2) That the time within which the plaintiff can comply with order 1 made by the Registrar on 9 September 2022 is extended to 24 November 2022.
(3) The time for compliance by the defendants with order 2 is extended to 8 December 2022.
(4) The Court book is also to be served by 8 December 2022.
(5) That the hearing date before Mossop J is confirmed.
| I certify that the preceding four [4] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Her Honour Chief Justice McCallum Associate: Date: 22 November 2022 |
0
0
1