KANAPATHY v In De Braekt (No.5)

[2015] FCCA 3235

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KANAPATHY v IN DE BRAEKT (No.5) [2015] FCCA 3235

Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Whether party can be exempted from photocopying fees prescribed by the Federal Court and Federal Circuit Court Regulation 2012.

Legislation:

Federal Court and Federal Circuit Court Regulation 2012, ss.2.04(2)(a)(ii) and 2.06, item 219 of pt.2 of sch.1

Applicant: RAJANDRAN KANAPATHY

Respondent: MEGAN IN DE BRAEKT

File Number: PEG 192 of 2010

Judgment of: Judge Cameron

Hearing date: 3 December 2015

Date of Last Submission: 3 December 2015

Delivered at: Perth

Delivered on: 3 December 2015

REPRESENTATION

For the Applicant: No appearance

Solicitors for the Applicant: Slater & Gordon

For the Respondent: In person

ORDERS

1. The respondent’s application in a case filed 23 November 2015 be dismissed.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT PERTH

PEG 192 of 2010

RAJANDRAN KANAPATHY

Applicant

And

MEGAN IN DE BRAEKT

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The respondent has filed an application to set aside a judgment entered in the present proceedings in 2013.  The application is listed for mention later this year.

2. The respondent has sought to photocopy documents which have been produced on subpoena to the Registry. The respondent, it appears, was advised by officials in the Registry that they had no power to exempt her from the photocopying fee prescribed by the Federal Court and Federal Circuit Court Regulation 2012 (Cth) (“Regulation”). She has filed an application in a case seeking orders, in effect, that she be relieved of the photocopying fee. 

3. As advised to the respondent during the course of her submissions, as a Judge of the Court I do not have power under s.2.06 of the Regulation to exempt her from paying the fees by reason of financial hardship. However, it does appear, by operation of s.2.04(2)(a)(ii) of the Regulation, that the Registrar or an authorised officer may have the power to exempt her from the fee, if the criteria prescribed by s.2.06 of the Regulation are satisfied. In that regard, I note that item 219 of pt.2 of sch.1 to the Regulation is not excluded from the operation of s.2.06.

4. Whether or not on further application the Registrar would waive the copying fee is a matter for him or the relevant officer. 

5. As I have no power to make the orders sought by the respondent, her application in a case will be dismissed. 

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Cameron

Deputy Associate: 

Date:  4 December 2015