Li v Commonwealth of Australia - [2002] FCA 1251

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Li v Commonwealth of Australia [2002] FCA 1251
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – strike out application – claim by unlawful non-citizen in respect of injuries sustained while in detention – allegation that respondents breached implied constitutional principles of equality before the law and equal access to the law – whether such claims disclose no reasonable cause of action – whether pleading as a whole should be struck out.
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 198(5)
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), ss 52, 75B, 82, 86A
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 39B
Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW), s 42
Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act 1970 (Cth), s 4(1)
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (Cth), s 5(4)
District Court Act 1973 (NSW), ss 44, 143
Federal Court Rules, O 11 rr 2,16
Li v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 667, cited.
Li v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 181, cited.
Philipps v Philipps (1878) 4 QBD 127, cited.
Trade Practices Commission v David Jones (Australia) Pty Ltd (1985) 7 FCR 109, cited.
Leeth v Commonwealth (1992) 174 CLR 455, followed.
Kruger v Commonwealth (1997) 190 CLR 1, followed.
Corrections Corporation of Australia Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (2000) 104 FCR 448, cited.
Brambles Holdings Ltd v Trade Practices Commission (1979) 28 ALR 191, cited.
Colgate-Palmolive Company v Cussons (1993) 46 FCR 225, cited.
LIANG WEI LI v COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA & ORS
N 428 of 2002
SACKVILLE J
SYDNEY
10 OCTOBER 2002

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 428 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

LIANG WEI LI
APPLICANT

AND:

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
FIRST RESPONDENT

AUSTRALIAN CORRECTIONAL MANAGEMENT PTY LTD
SECOND RESPONDENT

PHILLIP RUDDOCK
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

SACKVILLE

DATE OF ORDER:

10 OCTOBER 2002

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The amended statement of claim be struck out.

The applicant file and serve by 7 November 2002 any motion for leave to file a further amended statement of claim.

The applicant pay the first and third respondents’ costs of the hearing on 8 October 2002 on an indemnity basis.

The applicant pay the first and third respondents’ costs of the motion filed by the first and third respondents on 30 August 2002, such costs not to include the costs covered by order 3.

The applicant pay the second respondent’s costs of the motion filed by the second respondent on 17 September 2002.

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

N 428 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

LIANG WEI LI
APPLICANT

AND:

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
RESPONDENT

AUSTRALIAN CORRECTIONAL MANAGEMENT PTY LTD
SECOND RESPONDENT

PHILLIP RUDDOCK
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

SACKVILLE

DATE:

10 OCTOBER 2002

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

In these proceedings, the applicant, who is a citizen of the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”), was removed from…

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 Li v Commonwealth of Australia 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: [2002] FCA 1251
Decision Date: 10 OCTOBER 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Li, the applicant, brought proceedings against the Commonwealth of Australia, the first respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, the second respondent, and the Director of Immigration, the third respondent. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute centred around the applicant's claims for compensation and damages arising from his detention in immigration detention facilities, alleging that the detention conditions breached his human rights. The court was tasked with determining whether the applicant's amended statement of claim was sufficient to proceed with the litigation.

The legal issues before the court involved the validity of the applicant's amended statement of claim and whether it met the necessary standards to allow the case to progress. Specifically, the court had to assess if the amended statement of claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action and if the claims were within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court. Additionally, the court considered whether the applicant had complied with procedural requirements, including the timeliness and form of the amended statement of claim.

The court held that the amended statement of claim was inadequate. It found that the document did not sufficiently outline the facts and legal basis for the claims against the respondents. Consequently, the court struck out the amended statement of claim and ordered the applicant to file a further amended statement of claim by a specified date, with an opportunity to seek leave to do so. Furthermore, the court directed that the applicant pay the costs of the respondents associated with the hearing and the motions filed by the respondents. These orders emphasised the importance of procedural compliance and the need for clear and comprehensive legal pleadings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The amended statement of claim be struck out.

2. The applicant file and serve by 7 November 2002 any motion for leave to file a further amended statement of claim.

3. The applicant pay the first and third respondents’ costs of the hearing on 8 October 2002 on an indemnity basis.

4. The applicant pay the first and third respondents’ costs of the motion filed by the first and third respondents on 30 August 2002, such costs not to include the costs covered by order 3.

5. The applicant pay the second respondent’s costs of the motion filed by the second respondent on 17 September 2002.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

SACKVILLE J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: SACKVILLE J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 428 OF 2002

BETWEEN:	LIANG WEI LI APPLICANT
AND:	COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA FIRST RESPONDENT AUSTRALIAN CORRECTIONAL MANAGEMENT PTY LTD SECOND RESPONDENT PHILLIP RUDDOCK THIRD RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	SACKVILLE
DATE OF ORDER:	10 OCTOBER 2002
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

JUDGE:	SACKVILLE
DATE:	10 OCTOBER 2002
PLACE:	SYDNEY