Louis, R.M. v The Commonwealth of Australia

[1989] FCA 281

J'UZGViENT No. a?.! ..//...&.?-

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
\
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY	)
) No. ACT G 28 of 1989
DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION

: - B ROSALINA MELENA LOUIS, GRAHAM JAMES LOUIS, FERDINAND GRAHAH

by his next friends

Rosalina Melena Louis and
Graham James Louis, RACHAEL
ROSE LOUIS by her next friends
Rosallna Melena Louis and
Graham James Louis and MURRAY
DANIEL LOUIS by his next
friends Rosalina Melena Louls

and Graham James Louis

Applicants

AND:  THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

First Respondent

QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED

M: Neaves J.

m: 2 June 1989

M TEMPORE JUDGMENT	, FEDERAL COURT OF
; AUSTRALIA

defendants

PRINCIPAL

'\ REGISTRY

/'

'. . / L - .'

Thls is an appllcatlon made under Order 52, sub-<&&&^,/*''

15(2) of the Federal Court Rules by the applicants for leave to file and serve a notice of appeal from the judgment of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capltal Territory given on 29 May 1987 in a proceedlnq in that Court in which the applicants were the plalntlffs and the Commonwealth of Australia and Qantas Alrways Limlted were respectively the first and second

The application is dated 15 May 1989 and was filed on that date. It is supported by the two several affidavits of Graham James Louis sworn on 15 and 16 May 1989 respectively. Mr Louis has appeared in person and has made submissions on behalf of the applicants in support of the contention that the Court should exercise its discretion in their favour. The

application is opposed by the first and second respondents.

Under Order 52, sub-rule 15(2), an order granting
leave to file and serve a notlce of appeal out of time may be
granted "for special reasons" in the sense explained in Jess v.
(1986) 70 A.L.R. 185 at pp.193-4. The material placed

before the Court does not establish any special reason why the Court should overlook the long period of delay - two years - which has occurred between the date of the judgment of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory and the making of the present application. The application is, therefore, dismissed. The applicant must pay the costs of the first and second respondents of the application.

I certify that this and

the preceding page are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Mr Justice Neave S.

Associate

Dated: 2 June 1989

Mr G.J. Louis appeared in person on behalf of the

applicants

Counsel for the first respondent : Mr C.M. Ersklne

Solicitor for the first respondent: Australian Government

Solicitor

Counsel for the second respondent : Mr G.J. Lunney

Solicitors for the second	: Mallesons Stephen
respondent	Jaques