Klewer v Dutch

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Klewer v Dutch [1999] FCA 769
LUCY PATRICIA KLEWER V JENNY DUTCH & ANOR
N 98 OF 1999
EINFELD, FINN, EMMETT JJ
SYDNEY
28 MAY 1999

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 98 OF 1999

BETWEEN:

LUCY PATRICIA KLEWER
Appellant

AND:

JENNY DUTCH
First Respondent

MICHAEL DORING
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

EINFELD, FINN, EMMETT JJ

DATE:

28 MAY 1999

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

By consent, the judgment given by Justice Whitlam on 3 February 1999 is set aside. We make clear that this order is made by consent in the peculiar and particular circumstances to which the transcript bears witness, but without any adverse finding in relation to any of the matters on which his Honour pronounced judgment. It simply has not been necessary in the circumstances to consider the matter at all and to make any findings in relation to it.
In accordance with the consent there will be no order as to costs on this appeal. The costs below should abide the outcome of the next hearing.

I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justices Einfeld, Finn, Emmett JJ.
Associate:
Dated: 28 May 1999

The appellant appeared in person.

Counsel for the Respondent: Miss R. M. Henderson

Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

Date of Hearing: 28 May 1999

Date of Judgment: 28 May 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Klewer v Dutch, the appellant, Lucy Patricia Klewer, sought an appeal against the decision of Justice Whitlam, who had previously ruled in her case. The respondents were Jenny Dutch and Michael Doring. The primary legal issue before the Federal Court of Australia was whether to set aside the earlier judgment of Justice Whitlam, which had been given on 3 February 1999. The court needed to determine if the consent of the parties justified setting aside the prior judgment without any adverse findings or need for further consideration of the matter.

The court found that the consent of the parties, in light of the particular circumstances outlined in the transcript, warranted setting aside the earlier judgment. The court emphasised that this decision was made without any adverse findings regarding the previous judgment's content. The court further clarified that no order for costs would be made on this appeal, and the costs from the lower court should remain pending the next hearing. The court's decision was documented and certified as a true copy of the reasons for judgment by the Honourable Justices Einfeld, Finn, and Emmett. The appellant appeared in person, while the respondents were represented by counsel and the Australian Government Solicitor.

The court's reasoning was straightforward, focusing on the consent of the parties and the specific circumstances under which the prior judgment was set aside. The court concluded that setting aside the earlier judgment was appropriate under the consent of the parties, and no further findings were necessary. This decision effectively cleared the way for the next steps in the legal proceedings, with costs to be determined at a later stage.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 98 OF 1999

JUDGE:	EINFELD, FINN, EMMETT JJ
DATE:	28 MAY 1999
PLACE:	SYDNEY

The appellant appeared in person.
Counsel for the Respondent:	Miss R. M. Henderson
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	28 May 1999
Date of Judgment:	28 May 1999