Lawrance v Cth of Aust and Ors and Lawrance v AAT and Ors
[2008] FMCA 634
•15 May 2008
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| LAWRANCE v CTH OF AUST. & ORS and LAWRANCE v AAT & ORS | [2008] FMCA 634 |
| HUMAN RIGHTS – Interlocutory orders – discovery not appropriate in the interests of the administration of justice. |
| Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth), ss.42, 45 |
| Nestle Australia Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1996) FCR 78 |
| Applicant: | AROHA LAWRANCE |
| First Respondent: | COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA |
| Second Respondent: | CENTRELINK |
| Third Respondent: | JOBFIND CENTRES AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
| Fourth Respondent: | DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
| Fifth Respondent: | DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS |
| Sixth Respondent: | CRS AUSTRALIA |
| Seventh Respondent: | STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES |
| File number: | SYG 2109 of 2006 |
REPRESENTATION
| The Applicant: | Appearing on her own behalf |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Ms D. Watson of Australian Government Solicitor (for the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th Respondents) |
| Solicitors for the 3rd Respondent: | Mr MacInnis of Dibbs Abbott Stillman |
| Counsel for the 7th Respondent: | Mr Moorhouse |
| Solicitors for the 7th Respondent: | Crown Solicitors |
Applicant: | AROHA LAWRANCE |
| First Respondent: | ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL |
| Second Respondent: | COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA |
| Third Respondent: | SENIOR MEMBER ALLEN |
| Fourth Respondent: | SENIOR MEMBER KELLY |
| Fifth Respondent: | SENIOR MEMBER ISENBERG |
| Sixth Respondent: | DEPUTY PRESIDENT PURVIS |
| Seventh Respondent: | STEPHEN SHEPHERD |
| Eighth Respondent: | KIM RICHARDSON |
| Ninth Respondent: | PREETHI NIMMAGADDA |
| Tenth Respondent: | STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES |
| Eleventh Respondent: | NEW SOUTH WALES GUARDIANSHIP TRIBUNAL |
| Twelfth Respondent: | CRS AUSTRALIA |
| Thirteenth Respondent: | DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
| Fourteenth Respondent: | ANDRAS MARKUS |
| Fifteenth Respondent: | JUDY POWNALL |
| Sixteenth Respondent: | AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT SOLICITOR |
| Seventeenth Respondent: | ANNETTE O’NEILL |
| Nineteenth Respondent: | GUARDIANSHIP TRIBUNAL |
| File number: | SYG 655 of 2007 |
| Judgment of: | Turner FM |
| Hearing dates: | 12, 13, 14 & 15 May 2008 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 15 May 2008 |
REPRESENTATION
| The Applicant: | Appearing on her own behalf |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Ms D. Watson of the office of the Australian Government Solicitor (for the 1st, 9th, 12th to 17th Respondents) |
| Counsel for the 10th & 11th Respondents: | Mr Moorhouse |
| Solicitors for the 10th & 11th Respondents: | Crown Solicitors |
ORDERS
The application for discovery is dismissed.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 2109 of 2006
| AROHA LAWRANCE |
Applicant
And
| COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA |
First Respondent
| CENTRELINK |
Second Respondent
| JOBFIND CENTRES AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
Third Respondent
| DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
Fourth Respondent
| DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS |
Fifth Respondent
| CRS AUSTRALIA |
Sixth Respondent
| STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES |
Seventh Respondent
SYG 655 OF 2007
| AROHA LAWRANCE |
Applicant
And
| ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL |
First Respondent
| COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA |
Second Respondent
| SENIOR MEMBER ALLEN |
Third Respondent
| SENIOR MEMBER KELLY |
Fourth Respondent
| SENIOR MEMBER ISENBERG |
Fifth Respondent
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT PURVIS |
Sixth Respondent
| STEPHEN SHEPHERD |
Seventh Respondent
| KIM RICHARDSON |
Eighth Respondent
| PREETHI NIMMAGADDA |
Ninth Respondent
| STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES |
Tenth Respondent
| NEW SOUTH WALES GUARDIANSHIP TRIBUNAL |
Eleventh Respondent
| CRS AUSTRALIA |
Twelfth Respondent
DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
Thirteenth Respondent
| ANDRAS MARKUS |
Fourteenth Respondent
| JUDY POWNALL |
Fifteenth Respondent
| AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT SOLICITOR |
Sixteenth Respondent
| ANNETTE O’NEILL |
Seventeenth Respondent
| GUARDIANSHIP TRIBUNAL |
Nineteenth Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
The applicant seeks an order for discovery.
By s.45 of the Federal Magistrates Act 1999 discovery is not allowed in proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Court unless the Court declares that if it is appropriate in the administration of justice to allow discovery.
In deciding whether to allow discovery the Court must have regard to:
a)Whether allowing discovery would be likely to contribute to the fair and expeditious conduct of the proceedings. Discovery would certainly not contribute to the expeditious conduct of the proceedings;
b)Also it would be unfair to the Respondents to order discovery, especially where applications have been made to dismiss these matters as being an abuse of process and, because it is alleged that the proceedings are vexatious.
The Respondents oppose discovery. The Court finds that discovery would be oppressive.
The Court is required by s.42 of the Federal Magistrates Act 1999 to endeavour to ensure that the proceeds are not protracted.
Also it is clear from the papers that the applicant is merely fishing for material (Nestle Australia Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1996) FCR 78). On balance it would contribute to the fair conduct of them matter to allow discovery.
By order dated 26 October 2007 the Court dismissed an application for discovery in these matters for the reasons set out in the decision of that date. There are no grounds to change that decision.
Discovery is not appropriate. The application is rejected.
I certify that the preceding eight (8) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Turner FM
Associate:
Date: 15 May 2008
1
0