Lawrance v Commonwealth (No 2) - [2008] FCA 1060

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Lawrance v Commonwealth (No 2) [2008] FCA 1060
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – order previously made requiring security for costs – non-compliance with order – no explanation for non-compliance – no prospects of compliance – dismissal of proceeding
Federal Court of Australia Act1976 (Cth), s 56(3)
Federal Court Rules 1979 (Cth), O 28, r 5(1)(b), (2), O 62, r 4(2)(c)
Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson (1995) 57 FCR 119 considered
Billinudgel Pastoral Co Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation (Unreported, FCA, Cooper J, 27 March 1998) followed
Capital Webworks Pty Ltd v Adultshop.com.Limited [2008] FCA 40 followed
Cosdean Investments Pty Ltd v Football Federation Australia Ltd(No 3) [2007] FCA 766 followed
Lawrance v Commonwealth [2008] FCA 417 cited
Lawrance v Commonwealth (No 5) [2007] FMCA 1934 cited
Mary River Cattle Station Pty Ltd v Northern Territory [2002] NTSC 11 followed
Microbio Resources Inc v Betatene Ltd (Unreported, FCA, Black CJ, Sheppard and Einfeld JJ, 8 October 1993) followed
Sluggett v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission [2002] FCA 1060 considered
Truth about Motorways Pty Ltd v Macquarie Infrastructure Investment Management Ltd [2001] FCA 1603 followed
AROHA LAWRANCE v COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA AND ORS
NSD 2437 OF 2007
FLICK J
17 JULY 2008
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 2437 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

AROHA LAWRANCE
Appellant

AND:

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
First Respondent

STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES
Second Respondent

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INIDGENOUS AFFAIRS
Third Respondent

GENERAL MANAGER, CRS AUSTRALIA
Fourth Respondent

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT SOLICITOR
Fifth Respondent

ANDRAS MARKUS
Sixth Respondent

REGISTRAR, FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Seventh Respondent

KIM LACKENBY
Eighth Respondent

MICHAEL WALL
Ninth Respondent

MICHAEL PACKER
Tenth Respondent

JOHN PETKOVSHEK
Eleventh Respondent

JULIET CURTAIN
Twelfth Respondent

GERARD ENGLISH
Thirteenth Respondent

JUDGE:

FLICK J

DATE OF ORDER:

17 JULY 2008

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE ORDERS OF THE COURT ARE:
1.The proceeding be dismissed.
2.The Appellant to pay the costs of the First and Third to Thirteenth Respondents fixed in the sum of $7,500, that sum including the costs previously ordered to be paid on 4 April 2008 and the costs of and incidental to the Notice of Motion as filed on 15 July 2008.
3.The Appellant to pay the costs of the Second Respondent of and incidental to its Notice of Motion as filed on 15 July 2008.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 2437 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

AROHA LAWRANCE
Appellant

AND:

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
First Respondent

STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES
Second Respondent

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INIDGENOUS AFFAIRS
Third Respondent

GENERAL MANAGER, CRS AUSTRALIA
Fourth Respondent

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT SOLICITOR
Fifth Respondent

ANDRAS MARKUS
Sixth Respondent

REGISTRAR, FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Seventh Respondent

KIM LACKENBY
Eighth Respondent

MICHAEL WALL

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Lawrance v Commonwealth (No 2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2008] FCA 1060
Decision Date: 17 July 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Aroha Lawrance v Commonwealth of Australia [2008] FCA 1060, the Federal Court of Australia was called upon to determine the appropriate outcome in a proceeding that had been ongoing for some time. The case involved the Appellant, Aroha Lawrance, who was in dispute with multiple respondents, including the Commonwealth of Australia, the State of New South Wales, and various government officials and entities. The central issue before the court was whether the proceeding should be dismissed due to the Appellant's failure to comply with previous orders requiring her to provide security for costs.

The court was required to address whether the Appellant's non-compliance with the security for costs orders, coupled with her inability to provide any explanation or prospect of future compliance, warranted the dismissal of the proceeding. The Appellant had argued that she should be allowed to continue with the proceeding as she was pursuing other related matters in the Federal Magistrates Court. However, the Respondents contended that the Appellant's failure to comply with the security for costs orders justified the dismissal of the proceeding.

The court found that the Appellant had not provided any evidence or explanation for her non-compliance with the previous orders. It was noted that there had been no material change in circumstances since the original orders were made, and the Appellant remained unable to provide the required security. The court concluded that the dismissal of the proceeding was an appropriate sanction given the Appellant's persistent non-compliance. Furthermore, the court emphasised the importance of adhering to court orders to ensure the efficient and fair administration of justice. The court ordered the dismissal of the proceeding and also awarded costs to the Respondents, reflecting the Appellant's failure to meet her obligations.

Orders