Lawrance v Cth of Aust and Ors and Lawrance v AAT and Ors

[2008] FMCA 634

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 1^st, 2^nd, 4^th, 5^th, 6^th Respondents)

Solicitors for the 3^rd Respondent: Mr MacInnis of Dibbs Abbott Stillman

Counsel for the 7^th Respondent: Mr Moorhouse

Solicitors for the 7^th 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 1^st, 9th, 12^th to 17^th Respondents)

Counsel for the 10^th & 11^th Respondents: Mr Moorhouse

Solicitors for the 10^th & 11^th Respondents: Crown Solicitors

ORDERS

1. 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

1. The applicant seeks an order for discovery.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. The Respondents oppose discovery.  The Court finds that discovery would be oppressive.

5. The Court is required by s.42 of the Federal Magistrates Act 1999 to endeavour to ensure that the proceeds are not protracted.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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