Luck v Federal Court of Australia & Ors
[2010] HCATrans 75
[2010] HCATrans 075
IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Office of the Registry
Melbourne No M85 of 2009
B e t w e e n -
GAYE LUCK
Plaintiff
and
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
First Defendant
CHIEF JUSTICE (FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA)
Second Defendant
PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR (FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA)
Third Defendant
THIRD DOCKET JUSTICE IN FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA MATTER VID444/2008
Fourth Defendant
DEAKIN UNIVERSITY
Fifth Defendant
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF CENTRELINK
Sixth Defendant
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES (COMMONWEALTH)
Seventh Defendant
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN QUEENSLAND
Eighth Defendant
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Ninth Defendant
FOURTH DOCKET JUSTICE IN FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA MATTER VID444/2008 AND DOCKET JUSTICE IN FCA MATTERS VID464/2008, VID476/2008, VID488/08 VID357/2009 AND VID65/2010
Tenth Defendant
JUSTICE IN PLAINTIFF’S REFUSED FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA APPLICATION OF 28/09/09 FOR AN ORDER OF REVIEW OF DECISIONS OF AAT, AAT DEPUTY PRESIDENT AND THE SEVENTH DEFENDANT ABOVE, AND SENIOR PRESIDING JUSTICE IN THE PLAINTIFF’S FCA APPEAL MATTER VID899/2008 IN RESPECT OF THE EIGHTH DEFENDANT ABOVE
Eleventh Defendant
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Twelfth Defendant
PRESIDENT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Thirteenth Defendant
PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Fourteenth Defendant
PRESIDING MEMBER IN ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL MATTER V2009/3331
Fifteenth Defendant
VICTORIAN DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Sixteenth Defendant
DISTRICT REGISTRAR (MELBOURNE) OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Seventeenth Defendant
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF DEAKIN UNIVERSITY
Eighteenth Defendant
AUSCRIPT AUSTRALASIA PTY LTD
Nineteenth Defendant
Application for order to show cause
CRENNAN J
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
AT MELBOURNE ON WEDNESDAY, 24 MARCH 2010, AT 11.19 AM
Copyright in the High Court of Australia
__________________
MR P.H. CLARKE: May it please the Court, I appear for the fifth and eighteenth defendants. (instructed by McCabe Terrill)
MS H.M. SYMON, SC: May it please the Court, I appear for the sixth, seventh and ninth defendants. (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)
MR C.J. HORAN: May it please the Court, I appear for the eighth defendant. (instructed by Clayton Utz, Lawyers)
MR R.C. KNOWLES: May it please the Court, twelfth to fifteenth and the seventeenth defendants. (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)
HER HONOUR: Call the matter outside.
MS G. LUCK appeared in person.
HER HONOUR: Ms Luck, we are now up to matter No 85.
MS LUCK: Your Honour, I need an adjournment, please. I cannot stand this at the moment. I am sickened by what has been done here, and I need at least an hour. I am too stressed to operate at the moment.
HER HONOUR: Ms Luck, I made a confidentiality direction as requested by you in relation to the material upon which you relied in those former matters and I drew that direction to the attention of all persons present in Court in your absence.
MS LUCK: And then you refused all my requests. I need to have a rest. I am sickened by what has happened here. I am unable to operate at the moment. I need some time, thank you.
HER HONOUR: Would you like me to read out the orders made in the previous matter so that you are ‑ ‑ ‑
MS LUCK: No, I do not want to be further tortured by it. I know what you said. Ms Musolino summarised it very briefly for me and apparently you have denied me everything I have asked for. Thank you very much, your Honour. Now, can I have an adjournment? I am unable to cope with this at the moment.
HER HONOUR: What I have done, Ms Luck, is give you an extension of time so you can ‑ ‑ ‑
MS LUCK: An extension of time till April. I have not got time to do that and I am unable to do it and then when it comes to all these other matters I have got to deal with – look, Ma’am, just please give me – I just cannot cope at the moment. I am getting distressed beyond belief. I need an hour to settle down and get over what you have done, please, at least half an hour anyway.
HER HONOUR: Can I just explain in relation to the next matter, that the ‑ ‑ ‑
MS LUCK: No, your Honour, I cannot stand here. I am sick. I have a disability that is causing me post‑traumatic stress and it is quite evident.
HER HONOUR: Very well.
MS LUCK: Thank you.
HER HONOUR: I thought you might be assisted by knowing of a possible course of action in relation to the next matter, but if you wish to wait an hour for that ‑ ‑ ‑
MS LUCK: I said half an hour would be sufficient.
HER HONOUR: Half an hour. Yes, very well, I will stand the matter down for half an hour.
MS LUCK: Thank you.
AT 11.22 AM SHORT ADJOURNMENT
UPON RESUMING AT 11.57 AM:
HER HONOUR: I should record, just before Ms Luck makes her submissions, that the first, second, third and fourth defendants and the tenth, eleventh and sixteenth defendants have all filed submitting appearances. Yes, Ms Luck.
MS LUCK: Well, the first thing I would like to say is, as far as I am concerned and as far as I knew, the fifth defendant, who has filed a submitting appearance, has decided for some reason without notifying me or anybody else that they are going to appear today. They have no real right to do that, I do not think, I mean, without notifying us prior to it. For that reason – and not only that, I have added a party, the eighteenth defendant, who is the Chief Executive Officer of Deakin University, of the fifth defendant, who has not filed an appearance and I think this is a way of them getting in something there, that they really do not have the entitlement to appear today.
So, anyway, that, your Honour, said, I will go on and try – I have not really – because this is a directions hearing, it was not one that I was really working on because I had the other matters – the other matters plus – but with this particular instance, the Deakin University number one on my list of matters, I think – I am not sure, but I was going to say the consolidation by the adjournments and so on.
HER HONOUR: Well, the fifth defendant, as I understand it, is not opposing the grant of a further extension of time, although that defendant seeks directions for the provision of further and better particulars.
MS LUCK: Yes, but they are not supposed to be saying anything at the moment, as far as I am concerned. I cannot answer anything they have said. They have made a submitting appearance, your Honour.
HER HONOUR: Yes.
MS LUCK: Which means that they really should not have come in without making a new appearance, should they?
HER HONOUR: Now, what do you say about your application for an extension of time within which to file supporting affidavits?
MS LUCK: I am not answering these, Ma’am. I am dealing with my submissions. I am not answering something that should not even be here, your Honour.
HER HONOUR: No, I am asking you about your affidavits now of 21 October 2009 and 29 October 2009 in which you added a number of defendants and also sought an extension of time within which to file supporting affidavits. I am dealing with that.
MS LUCK: Your Honour, this, I was informed in correspondence from Ms Musolino for M85, I come here for directions. I had no – apart from having added two parties on ‑ ‑ ‑
HER HONOUR: The directions would include giving you an opportunity to file supporting affidavits, making a time for you to do that.
MS LUCK: Yes, well, your Honour, quite clearly – I mean, I do not understand why it cannot be seen, especially by the Court, that clearly things have not become the same. They have changed since I came to the Court with this first application. There is an enormous amount of change that has occurred because of all the abuses and subjection to discrimination, harassment, victimisation.
HER HONOUR: Well, one possibility, Ms Luck, would be to postpone directions in relation to the substantive application and simply make directions in relation to an application foreshadowed by the sixth, seventh and ninth defendants. They have indicated ‑ ‑ ‑
MS LUCK: Ma’am, please, let me finish. I have got to get – I have got my submissions here, the order in which I am going to do them.
HER HONOUR: Very well. I will let you ‑ ‑ ‑
MS LUCK: All right. So could you just leave me to get my documents together because I have been very distressed. I have had – suffering post‑traumatic stress disorder over what was done this morning and I cannot handle – I cannot deal with it. I am having difficulty dealing with everything because I do not know what I can do to stop it, and for the moment nobody is going to stop it. In fact, the Court seems to be able to keep adding to it.
HER HONOUR: Well, what I was going to suggest to you ‑ ‑ ‑
MS LUCK: I am just getting to the thing that I need to do most.
HER HONOUR: Would you just let me make this point, Ms Luck. It may be possible to postpone any directions in relation to the substantive matter until the Court deals with the foreshadowed application of the sixth, seventh and ninth defendants, their application. In other words, you would not be required to file any material in the substantive application.
MS LUCK: It has got nothing to do with the sixth, seventh and ninth defendants, your Honour.
HER HONOUR: They have indicated in their summary of argument that they wish to make an application for a stay under rule 27.09.4 in relation to this matter.
MS LUCK: To the whole matter?
HER HONOUR: Yes, that is what they wish me to do.
MS LUCK: I see. So the three of them want to stop the whole thing? Right. Okay. Well, we will worry about that later, your Honour, because there is a lot more very important issues that have to be dealt with here and one of them – and the first one is right at this moment I am being subjected to the most unbelievable abuse and discrimination and victimisation by Deakin University and that is the fifth – and also the Chief Executive Officer, the eighteenth defendant. Now, quite clearly that is not going to ‑ ‑ ‑
HER HONOUR: Well, I can postpone dealing with matters concerning the fifth defendant until ‑ ‑ ‑
MS LUCK: I do not want to postpone dealing with matters – with anything. I am not dealing – I am not postponing anything, your Honour. I am asking for Deakin University and – the fifth and the eighteenth defendants to be brought in the next few days for me to seek an urgent injunction to prevent them, under the constitutional law of section 75, treaties and – under 76 as well, under the laws of the Disability Discrimination Act and all the treaties – that I want them to be restrained from victimising and discriminating against me that is causing me extraordinary harm, severe distress.
They are preventing me from attending classes on these retaliatory, abusive acts and I want to have them stopped and I need to have it stopped urgently because they are destroying my life and I need to make – that is the first thing on my list, your Honour, to make a date, a very soon date for us to come back. They can make their submissions – they can do everything just like I am going to be able to do – to put before you all the necessary information that you will need to make that injunction.
HER HONOUR: Yes, all right. You can make that application at a time which suits you and there will be a return date of that application. But the only matters that we are dealing with this morning are whether you need an extension of time to file supporting material in relation to this matter and a timetable ‑ ‑ ‑
MS LUCK: I have to get through the things that I need to deal with on No 85 and all you are worried about – and all you are trying to direct me to do is worry about – why can you not just say, well, quite clearly it is not a stay situation? I mean, what is this? I feel like you are actually them against me, one of - the whole lot of you here.
HER HONOUR: I am just trying to make ‑ ‑ ‑
MS LUCK: Ma’am, I am not even getting a chance to put my case before you or what I want for directions.
HER HONOUR: I am trying to make sure that you understand the limits of this directions hearing.
MS LUCK: The limits of this directions hearing are to get directions for the future progress of this matter, is that correct?
HER HONOUR: The directions hearing is concerned with giving you an opportunity to file a timetable which gives you an opportunity to file supporting ‑ ‑ ‑
MS LUCK: No. A directions hearing is for directions, your Honour, and I am allowed to seek the directions that I need to seek.
HER HONOUR: All right, Ms Luck. You apply for whatever directions you want.
MS LUCK: Well, that is what I would like to do, if you would not mind. I do not know – I am not interested in them coming to jump in and make a stay. If that is the Court’s desire, fine. I will go straight to the international courts and show them exactly what they do to disabled people and people who are being racially discriminated and victimised.
HER HONOUR: All right. Well, what ‑ ‑ ‑
MS LUCK: And that is basically what is happening here.
HER HONOUR: What directions ‑ ‑ ‑
MS LUCK: And these sort of orders sought by the defendants to stay a matter that has quite clearly got some very serious ramifications for the Federal Court, which is – when it concerns the fifth defendant and the fourth defendant and the third and the second defendant who have been dealing with matters inappropriately. There has been some very serious flaws in the way that hearings were conducted by the fourth defendant. These are all evidenced. I have now brought the nineteenth defendant, Auscript, who was present and recorded the hearings of the defendants – the ones before the fourth defendant and for the fifth defendant on – in August. I am not sure of the date, but there was a hearing on 17 September.
HER HONOUR: What directions are you seeking today, Ms Luck?
MS LUCK: I am seeking – well, first of all, I am allowed to say about what I – I would like to put forward what I think about the way that this is progressing. Your only concern, the minute I stood here, was that I deal with getting extensions of time for stays when clearly anybody can see that this particular matter is far more complex than three of the parties who have a very strong interest in getting me out of the Court because they have got so much evidence against them that I am going to be filing and that it will be heard by the Full Court, that they do not want this matter heard. None of them want it heard because the evidence is all very clearly against them.
So I am entitled to make this commentary about the things that have been going on, and that I feel, when I come to this Court, I am not getting any equality of opportunity or equal justice here any further than I have down below. And at the moment, with the disability discrimination against me this morning and subjecting me to further harassment about such things when it is known to the Court that I could not cope with – and I said in a letter and also in – that there is a matter coming before the Court for an injunction to prevent my medical evidence being exposed to the Court and then I am being forced to have it projected out here to everybody. I am distressed. If I sound distressed and even, to some degree, aggressive, it is because of my post‑traumatic stress symptoms that make me that way.
Now, when it comes to this M85 matter, it needs to be dealt with by consolidating all the issues, the common questions of law and the constitutional questions of law because they all underlie the problems related in this matter and each of the parties in this matter also is a party, except for the fifth and eighteenth and the nineteenth defendants are already in other matters in the removals and special leave applications. And I will be seeking to remove the Deakin University, the fifth defendant, and the nineteenth defendant – eighteenth defendant, I am sorry, to the High Court for the whole or part of the matter VID444/2008.
The first order that I would like to have made, or direction rather, is that within the very near future – because I am unable to attend classes that I am enrolled in and I have paid for because of this victimisation, discrimination of me and it is in the last two units of my degree that they have prevented me from achieving them – I would like to come back maybe within a week, to be fair to everybody, including myself, to prepare enough documents which is fairly rapid, which means I will miss another week of university before I – one particular class – but that would be satisfactory to give people the opportunity and myself to get it organised.
HER HONOUR: What is the application you want to make in a week?
MS LUCK: I am seeking an injunction to restrain the Deakin University from – excuse me, I will just tell you exactly what I am doing – it will be on the summons, your Honour, that I filed on 18 March. I am sorry, I am just finding it. No 7 on the amended summons of 18 March:
An urgent injunction directed to the Fifth and Eighteenth Defendants, pursuant to section 98(1), (2) and (6) of the Privacy Act 1988 (PA), that the Fifth Defendant record‑keeper, who has in its possession and control –
No, actually, I am sorry. That too, but that is:
and contains personal information and has refused and is proposing to refuse to grant the Plaintiff’s entitlement to have access to her student record, which is and would be a contravention of the PA, in particular Privacy Principal 6, be commanded to grant the Plaintiff’s entitlement to have access to her complete student record, because the refusal and proposed refusal is and would be an interference with the Plaintiff’s privacy as defined by section 13 of the PA and the defendant is bound by the mandatory provisions of the Higher Education Support Act 2003, in particular sections 19-60, 19-65, 179-35 of that Act, as an Higher Education Provider, to comply with the information principles set out in section 14 of the PA and with the requirements of the PA.
That, however, your Honour, is one of the very important – and much of the material that I filed in the High Court turns on that particular issue and so therefore that is one important common question of law and constitutional issue that needs to be determined. So the injunction that I would seek there probably is not appropriate as an urgent one, but ‑ ‑ ‑
HER HONOUR: Do you wish ‑ ‑ ‑
MS LUCK: Just a minute, please, your Honour, I am just finishing. I am going to No 10 here.
HER HONOUR: Paragraph 10?
MS LUCK: Yes:
An urgent injunction directed to the Eighteenth Defendant to perform her duties in accordance with the law, under the Trade Practices Act1974, the Higher Education Support Act 2003, the Deakin University Act1974, the Privacy Act1988, the Freedom of Information Act1982 (Cth), the Disability Discrimination Act1992, the Racial Discrimination Act1975, the Racial Hatred Act1995, the Australian Human Rights Commission Act1986, and the treaties scheduled thereto, the International Covenant of Civil and Economic Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Declaration of the Rights of Disabled Persons and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Disability Standards for Education 2005, to make proper decisions, to initiate immediate action to cease and have ceased the acts of the Fifth Defendant and its officers of ongoing disability and racial discrimination, harassment and victimisation of the Plaintiff –
that is myself –
(retaliatory as a consequence of [my] litigation in this Court and the Federal Court of Australia and of complaints made by the Plaintiff to the Fifth and Eighteenth Defendants of the Fifth Defendant and its officers’ racial and disability discrimination against the Plaintiff and students of the Fifth . . . and the other students of the Fifth Defendant.
That is the urgent injunction I seek.
HER HONOUR: Now, do you wish to file any more material in relation to that injunction or do you wish to ‑ ‑ ‑
MS LUCK: I do, your Honour, of course. I have much evidence that I have to do – and it is because of the ongoing nature of this since 2007 when I first became a student at the University – I would direct the Court to the file that is in the Federal Court, VID444, which has been stayed. I would direct the Court to that file to the basis of the originating application. However, since then, since filing that application in 2008, I think it was 19 June 2008, I have been subjected to numerous occasions and, in more recent time, since last year, since about September last year, been very badly victimised from various staff and through the eighteenth defendant who I contacted and communicated with, you know, informing them of the circumstances and not one action has been taken to prevent this.
In fact, what has happened, rather than them taking action or disciplinary measures against the staff of the University, they have actually concocted, after my complaints and after the litigation, various misconduct charges against me, false ones, and they have now used that as a reason for denying me access to a class which will finish off my degree this year.
HER HONOUR: What sort of time do you want in order to finish filing your material in support of the injunctions against the fifth and the eighteenth ‑ ‑ ‑
MS LUCK: Your Honour, I reckon, because of my circumstances and being a University student and needing to do my courses, at the moment there is – I am getting behind and I need to finish, so I would like to do it ASAP which I would say that perhaps next Wednesday would be an adequate time for me, and perhaps by – I would obviously ask for the full length of time as I can to get that in because I have got a lot to do.
HER HONOUR: You want to do that by 31 March?
MS LUCK: Well, it would be appropriate to get it done – it is an urgent application, your Honour, so I want that decided on the day, which means that I need ‑ ‑ ‑
HER HONOUR: Well, I will have to allow time for Deakin University to respond to your material.
MS LUCK: Well, I would like the hearing next Wednesday.
HER HONOUR: Well, I cannot do a hearing next Wednesday. I will be interstate.
MS LUCK: When will you be able to do a hearing, your Honour, at the earliest convenience?
HER HONOUR: I am sorry, I will be back by Wednesday, hopefully.
MS LUCK: Would a hearing by next Wednesday be ‑ ‑ ‑
HER HONOUR: Yes, I am available to do a hearing next Wednesday.
MS LUCK: Your Honour. Then in that case, I would say, if I was able to get it in by Monday, the material, which should give the – as they are fully aware, your Honour, the material that I will have to produce, everything is in the hands of the defendants. So they are not being given anything new and so they could perhaps by the day of the – or the next day or something. I do not know how it can be done, but given that the injunction is such an urgent and important one for me, and I have got to do the bulk of the work as usual ‑ ‑ ‑
HER HONOUR: Yes. So that is the kind of timetable you are seeking in relation to your ‑ ‑ ‑
MS LUCK: I would, if that was reasonable, your Honour, to you, yes. So the real injunction there is – the only injunction, the privacy injunction – in fact, that is what this M85 matter involves and again these privacy matters. These are the common questions of law surrounding the – as I pointed out earlier, they cannot be extracted from this one because Deakin University was – actually the instigation of this – the initiation and instigation of my filing an application to show cause in this matter was based on a hearing and the previous conduct of the judge and the various issues relating to the fifth defendant.
So then that is why all the other removal applications were filed, because these parties also have a right, even though they are not specifically involved in this particular matter, they are involved to some degree in the Federal Court, the Chief Justice, the Principal Registrar and the various Registrars and so they needed to be a party to it to show cause or whatever that they were entitled to do and that is why I brought them because all of these matters that relate to the Federal Court and the officers of the Federal Court, many of them are related to the Disability Discrimination Act and the Privacy Act and my rights to equal opportunity and equal justice and everything else. So naturally they had to be brought.
I understand the sixth, seventh and ninth defendants, and the Commonwealth, they are inevitably involved and they cannot stay the matter, your Honour. It is a matter that needs to be determined. Anyway, there is no point in me saying anything else about the staying of the matter. The staying of the matter can only occur after the investigations have been made and I have sought to have the Attorney‑General – and I have just filed the affidavit of service of that, which I will fax to the parties this afternoon, or tomorrow. I have sought, with my service of the notice of constitution to the Attorney‑General for him to intervene in this particular matter, M85, and to prosecute the offences that have been – under these Acts.
I have not had a response from the Commonwealth yet – I am sorry, not the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth Attorney‑General. In fact, I have not had any response as yet as to whether there is intervention on anyone’s part. So really and truly I do not think that we should be pre‑empting any sort of a stay at this stage, your Honour.
So then the next thing is, of course, with No 1 was the restraint injunction that I seek against the fifth and eighteenth and then I would seek to ask – I do not know whether I can make it because they are in this matter, whether I can ask for – make an oral application for the removal of the fifth and the eighteenth defendants or whether I have to go through the process, which would be very inconvenient if I have to, but I will if necessary. But if I can make an oral application to remove those two, I would appreciate that that would be granted.
HER HONOUR: Well, I think if you are going to make any applications, it is best if they are made in writing and the supporting material is filed at the same time, then the defendants know the case they have to meet. You will have a lot to do in relation to preparing for the injunction, so I do not want to overburden you with work.
MS LUCK: No, your Honour. I do not know whether that would be necessary though. I mean, really, that is probably what ‑ ‑ ‑
HER HONOUR: Are you suggesting you want to have the application for removal heard at the same time?
MS LUCK: No.
HER HONOUR: No.
MS LUCK: No, no. There are other issues in that. The trade practice comes in under the Trade Practices Act that would ‑ ‑ ‑
HER HONOUR: Well, perhaps it is ‑ ‑ ‑
MS LUCK: I will worry about the injunction for the moment, your Honour.
HER HONOUR: For the moment, yes.
MS LUCK: Then through the consolidation via adjournments or other matters, well, I do not know how you would plan, obviously. I can assure you that with the things I have got to prepare already for this injunction, I do not think I am going to be able to meet the times that apparently have been made for filing summaries of arguments, but, anyway, I am sure you will give me some enlightenment on that afterwards.
HER HONOUR: In this matter, is it an appropriate course to put off your application for an extension of time, in relation to filing materials in relation to the substantive matters, until the application for a stay is dealt with, in other words, not make any directions today for you to do anything in relation to filing supporting material in the substantive matters.
MS LUCK: Yes, but they have given a time when they want to do it, you know.
HER HONOUR: I will make directions as to the time for a hearing of it, just as I will make ‑ ‑ ‑
MS LUCK: Well, I do not seem to have any say in when I think I can do any of this, you know. I am one person. I cannot do anything. I can only do what I have done and, as you can see, in the last few months I have done – because of my – it is my life and I am asserting my rights to the justice and everything that I am entitled to. I did not ask to be here. I did not ask to put all these cases in. It is killing me and it was all over – every single one of these matters relates to the denial of my right to access my documents, privacy documents, under freedom of information and privacy law and every single one of these parties has breached these laws and denied me access to those documents and since then, look what has happened.
The Court and the amount of money that is spent here is – and to keep making it worse and worse and worse and worse for me, I think it is an abomination beyond belief. I do not know whether it will ever see daylight, but I tell you what, I am not going to stop until – I am entitled to the law, the justice and to the equality before the law and so far not one single step has been equal in any way, shape or form. So when it comes to timing, you can give me as many times as you like, your Honour, but I am not going to – I have to put myself first. I have to put my life and health and the most important things to me, which is getting rid of the abuses that are constantly making me ill and nearly killing me and endangering my life; that is number one.
So the first thing in this instance is Deakin University injunction, then the removal, if that is necessary or not. It does not really matter at the moment. The most important thing is the injunction. Then, as far as all the questions of law – because this urgent injunction thing I cannot go through – there are huge amounts of evidence and it will all go back to the very beginning of the case, your Honour, and I do not know what I can do to get an urgent injunction, an interim injunction, that is immediate that I do not have to go through making arguments for all the common questions of law. Do you understand, your Honour?
HER HONOUR: Yes.
MS LUCK: It becomes so complicated that I would not be able to put forward a proper argument next week. I would have to seek, based on some very primary evidence, perhaps, recent primary evidence that I think will suffice to get – that can be seen to be what I say it is, but that is still a lot. It is still volumes of it. Anyway, I will just have to try and file it. Your Honour, would it be acceptable to file electronic disks, and to give all the parties, of evidentiary material for this particular purpose?
HER HONOUR: I do not think so, Ms Luck.
MS LUCK: Would it be legitimate to do it with a paper copy to the Court and a disk of the exact same material and provide the disks to the parties?
HER HONOUR: I think the proper course is to file in the usual way, file and serve in the usual way.
MS LUCK: Yes, I know, your Honour, but do I have to file and serve every single one ‑ ‑ ‑
HER HONOUR: Why do we not worry about ‑ ‑ ‑
MS LUCK: Well, it has to be dealt with now, your Honour, because I will not be able to do anything properly. I cannot put my case forward properly unless I have the means to do it and at the moment, given the volume of material, the timeframe, the need to get it done quickly, I was thinking maybe that if I provided the Court with it – and do I have to provide all the parties in here, so that I have to provide every defendant with this for this particular injunction. Well, perhaps you could order that it is only the parties involved in this one that I need to serve?
HER HONOUR: Yes. Is that all you want to say for the time being?
MS LUCK: No, your Honour.
HER HONOUR: No. All right, very well.
MS LUCK: So I would ask that you direct that in this particular case – not only that, it is not particularly anyone else’s business and it is all related to my personal records and that is another thing, your Honour, these are my personal records. So I would be seeking to have the privacy on these records.
HER HONOUR: Yes. You can make an application in relation to the records when you file them.
MS LUCK: So anything relating to my student records could be kept private?
HER HONOUR: You can make whatever applications you wish in relation to confidentiality and that can be dealt with.
MS LUCK: So the consolidation of the – that is what I was getting to, that point, that because of the issues involved in the fifth and the eighteenth defendants, numerous of those are common questions of law, the disability discrimination, privacy. So that needs to be dealt with before any of the other substantive issues can be dealt with. So that is why I wanted to adjourn the other matters because I cannot prepare those special leave application summary of arguments for the two matters you have given me to do, and then do this and then do these ones here. It is physically impossible.
HER HONOUR: Yes, very well.
MS LUCK: So I seek again – I will not turn my attention to those. I cannot. As I said, I have to direct myself to what is the most important and most urgent for me. So I can assure you now, your Honour, that if I have to file any summaries of argument for the special leave – your Honour, I have nine cases here. I cannot even get to remember or look through – I have to go through each one and read every case again to remind me of what my reasons and arguments were. So to do the common questions of law would be the only reasonable way to do it, for me. I cannot do all that. Anyway, it is pointless telling anyone that because nobody cares and nobody wants to stop it. They just keep adding more to it. Anyway, I am just getting distressed again because I cannot see any way out of what is happening here.
HER HONOUR: Well, I will take into ‑ ‑ ‑
MS LUCK: I need to file some more constitutional notices which relate to these matters as well with this matter.
HER HONOUR: I will be attempting to make directions in this matter which take into account what you have said to me about your difficulties because of the multiplicity of proceedings.
MS LUCK: Thank you, your Honour. I have got further notices of constitutional matters to be filed and served which will be done as soon as I can, which is M50, M52 and M65 and then there is another one, M110 in the High Court.
HER HONOUR: Yes.
MS LUCK: That, I believe, should do that, but I have served the notice – filed an affidavit of service for the notice of constitutional matter for this one today. It has been served on all the Attorneys‑General and, as far as – I would still say that it would be in my – my most urgent application is the restraint injunction, then to be provided with an opportunity to make
appropriate common questions and constitutional questions that need to be prepared and filed. Thank you.
HER HONOUR: Yes. Mr Clarke, I think you are the person most concerned with the injunction. You are appearing for the fifth and the eighteenth.
MR CLARKE: Yes.
HER HONOUR: Ms Luck proposed a timetable where she filed material in support of the injunction on or before Monday, 29 March. She proposed that you have a day to respond and that the hearing take place on 31 March. What do you say about that proposed timetable?
MR CLARKE: Very tight, your Honour, from a personal stand ‑ ‑ ‑
HER HONOUR: Would you need something more like 48 days to respond ‑ ‑ ‑
MR CLARKE: Forty eight hours, your Honour?
HER HONOUR: Forty eight hours, sorry.
MR CLARKE: Yes, your Honour. As a matter of personal circumstance, I am in another court on the Wednesday. It is the only day next week.
HER HONOUR: Would the Thursday suit you?
MR CLARKE: Thursday would be fine, your Honour.
HER HONOUR: Yes, very well.
MR CLARKE: Subject to the plaintiff providing the ‑ ‑ ‑
HER HONOUR: Being on time.
MR CLARKE: Being on time.
HER HONOUR: Yes, very well.
MR CLARKE: Your Honour, one aspect about which I am not sure is as to whether the eighteenth‑named defendant in fact has been made a party to the proceeding, that is, the Chief Executive Officer of Deakin University, or the Vice-Chancellor. It is certainly in the amended application. There is no affidavit material to support that joinder and it is not clear.
HER HONOUR: Perhaps that is a matter that can be dealt with as part of the injunction application.
MR CLARKE: We are content to deal with that, your Honour.
HER HONOUR: All right. In this matter I would propose a timetable along the lines that has been discussed in the matter insofar as it deals with an urgent application concerning the fifth and eighteenth defendants.
MR CLARKE: Yes, your Honour. Your Honour, in relation to my learned friend, Ms Luck raised the question of the appearance. It was a submitting appearance. It was brought to my attention within the last day. It clearly is wrong, your Honour, and I would seek leave to amend that to make it a regular appearance pursuant to rule 3.01.
HER HONOUR: Just give me the order you want.
MR CLARKE: Leave to amend the appearance to change it from a submitting appearance, your Honour.
HER HONOUR: Yes. Otherwise, in relation to the substantive matters, I understand your position is you are complaining about a lack of particulars but you do not propose an extension of time at some point?
MR CLARKE: Your Honour, we are content, if Ms Luck is seeking an adjournment, which she certainly indicated in relation to the other proceedings, we are content with that, your Honour. The only thing we would draw to the Court’s attention is the fact that since September last year when the original application was filed, in the original application, in the summons, in the affidavit, in letters to the Court, in the amended application, in her second affidavit sworn on 21 October, in each of those documents she has indicated that further affidavits would be provided. She also, in various of those, has indicated that there would be further particulars and she has also indicated that there would be submissions. We have not seen any of those, your Honour.
HER HONOUR: Yes, very well.
MR CLARKE: The only other matter I would seek to raise, your Honour, is the matter which apparently has been raised by the sixth, seventh and ninth defendants. That is in relation to a possible application for, effectively, a summary dismissal of the proceeding. I should say that we likewise were looking at that, but we were going to go down the route, or proposing to, to seek the further particulars in relation to the various constitutional issues. It may be, your Honour, that the constitutional issues which Ms Luck contends arose in the Federal Court, in fact they were not
constitutional issues and those only arose in the High Court. So before we pursue that, an application under 27.09.4, we were looking at getting the further affidavit material, if there is any, and the particulars and submissions.
HER HONOUR: You have been present in Court and you have heard what Ms Luck has submitted in relation to the difficulties she will have if she is preparing a multiplicity of material.
MR CLARKE: I have.
HER HONOUR: I want to hear from Ms Symon obviously, but an appropriate course may be to set a timetable for the present application that is foreshadowed under rule 27.09.4 and to postpone further dealing with the questions of extension of time, particulars and so on perhaps on the same day. That might be an appropriate course, because I do not want to overburden Ms Luck with having her dealing with more matters than she can manage within the timeframe. Would you be content with that course?
MR CLARKE: Well, I would, your Honour. The only observation I would make is that the very issues that Ms Symon may wish to raise in relation to 27.09 might obtain in relation to Deakin University as well.
HER HONOUR: It is a matter for you, of course, whether you bring a like application or whether you do not, or what the precise timing of it is.
MR CLARKE: Indeed, your Honour.
HER HONOUR: So I can say no more other than it is a matter for you.
MR CLARKE: Yes, thank you. If your Honour please.
HER HONOUR: Thank you. Yes, Ms Symon.
MS SYMON: If your Honour pleases. We have foreshadowed the making of the application under rule 27.09.4 and would propose that that application be filed by 16 April.
HER HONOUR: Yes, I have seen that.
MS SYMON: We have not taken the matter any further in terms of directions that your Honour might make with regard to the filing of further documents or the hearing of the matter, but certainly we would be happy to ‑ ‑ ‑
HER HONOUR: Well, one possibility might be – I will raise this with Ms Luck, but I will raise it with you too – is that rather than directing that Ms Luck file material in response to your material filed by the 16th, it might be better to proceed on the basis that she can give oral evidence on the hearing of the application and can make oral submissions on the hearing of the application and therefore is excused from putting in her material in writing. I will ask her whether that suits her, but that might be one possibility.
MS SYMON: Yes.
HER HONOUR: To which, I dare say, you would not object.
MS SYMON: No, your Honour.
HER HONOUR: It means that you will not have the benefit of advance material, but ‑ ‑ ‑
MS SYMON: No, your Honour, but the application will go to the appropriateness and the nature of the proceedings rather than the substantive issues. So apart from history of the proceedings, which we would provide to the Court, there should not be a need for any further material.
HER HONOUR: Yes. It is a possible course and depending on what Ms Luck wants to do will depend the time fixed for hearing of that application.
MS SYMON: Yes, as your Honour pleases.
HER HONOUR: Yes, thank you. Do you want to respond now, Ms Luck, to Ms Symon’s application under rule 27.09.4?
MS LUCK: I want to respond to Mr Clarke’s.
HER HONOUR: I just want to make sure you fully understand what I am saying.
MS LUCK: Yes, I did.
HER HONOUR: I will just reiterate, if I may. In the normal course I would give you, say, 21 days within which to file and serve any affidavits in response to that application together with a summary of argument. But if you would prefer it, I would be content to deal with the application on the basis that you can give your evidence orally on the date of hearing and can make submissions on the date of hearing. It is just a question of what would suit you best.
MS LUCK: Yes, your Honour. That does not preclude me from making written submissions, though, does it?
HER HONOUR: Well, if you would like to make written submissions, I ‑ ‑ ‑
MS LUCK: That is my point, is that I will take the one you offer and if I find myself in any way able to do it and want to do it, I will make the written submissions as well, if that is okay.
HER HONOUR: All right. Well, I will not make any formal direction that you put in written submissions by a particular time.
MS LUCK: No, thank you.
HER HONOUR: I will not make a formal direction that you put in a written summary of argument, but if you wish to do so, you may do so.
MS LUCK: Thank you. I wanted to go back to Mr Clarke. First of all, there is no question that the eighteenth defendant is a party. This has not been heard. It was filed and I can amend it and put as many and add as many as I choose until the date of the hearing. Only now, if I wanted to add somebody, would I need to seek your leave, your Honour. So the eighteenth defendant is a party and needs to file an appearance if that is what they are going to be doing. In regard to the stay – you mentioned something about the stay, hearing of the stay, on the same day as something else. What was that?
HER HONOUR: That your application for an extension of time or an adjournment because you want to consolidate, that could all be dealt with at the same day.
MS LUCK: Well, I am asking for that now, your Honour. I will ask for that now. I want an extension of time, exactly as I have written it in my application and my summons, which is that – and I would like to read that out now, thank you, to tell you what I want.
HER HONOUR: This is for the supporting affidavits in relation to the substantive matter. As I understand it, your original application was you wanted an extension of time. Your present application is you want an adjournment because you want to consider an application to consolidate and all I am suggesting ‑ ‑ ‑
MS LUCK: I have not asked for an adjournment in 85.
HER HONOUR: No, you want an extension of time, as I understand it, in which to ‑ ‑ ‑
MS LUCK: Yes, your Honour. I mean, but clearly, I understand that this – these are exceptional circumstances me standing here before you, your Honour.
HER HONOUR: All I am saying, Ms Luck, is that your application for an extension of time can be postponed to the same time as the hearing of the stay application. That is without prejudice to your application for an extension of time. In other words, for the time being you would not be required to take any steps.
MS LUCK: Well, there might be some – yes.
HER HONOUR: You see what I am saying?
MS LUCK: But on the day that I actually seek an extension of time and you have decided in any – and this is the problem here, your Honour. You are a single Justice and I do not think a stay should be heard before you, with all due respect. A stay of this M85 matter, or any of these matters, should not be before you. They should be before a Full Court, as I have asked for all the three – the common questions of law and all those things need to be determined by a Full Court.
HER HONOUR: The application for a stay will be heard by me, Ms Luck.
MS LUCK: Well, I do not accept that that is appropriate given the seriousness of these cases and the fact that the common questions of law that go throughout these are ones that I have sought to have determined by a Full Court. It would be inappropriate for you to stay a matter with the Commonwealth as a party and all these offences under it, and there are offences. In fact, there might have to be a stay for that reason. In fact, when it comes to this particular application for an injunction we have got a problem, because I am definitely prosecuting offences under there and I believe that the Attorney‑General should be involved and therefore we might need to deal with this in a different manner, particularly for the injunction.
Perhaps what I might need to do is to – well, I just want to – look, there are things going on at the University that I think would be in the interests of the University. I am being charged with misconduct. I was made to reply by Friday. These are false allegations of misconduct
following my complaints about disability discrimination and racial discrimination. They made me reply by Friday and I replied. I am now awaiting the response of the head of school and the head of school has all the information and knows very well the circumstances of which I was charged with this misconduct. In fact, he was involved in doing it, but I do not think he was involved in making the allegations.
So I suspect he really should have notified me by now, because it was Friday, but I think they are waiting till after this hearing. So if he finds that I have not made any misconduct, which should be the correct procedure and the correct decision, there may very well not be a need to do the urgent injunction because I will be allowed back into the course that I have been prevented from attending. But discrimination, both racial and disability, are offences under the Act and, as I have said to you, I have notified the Attorney‑General and I have sought his intervention to prosecute them.
So this becomes quite complicated. I appreciate your Honour may not have expected that to come up, but I feel that in view of the fact that these are serious offences, that for you to stay this matter would not be appropriate and therefore I ask you to adjourn this until such time as further developments have been made as to whether the Attorney‑General wants to intervene or not.
HER HONOUR: Yes, thank you. Is that all you wish to say, Ms Luck?
MS LUCK: Yes, I think so, your Honour.
HER HONOUR: Yes. Mr Horan, you would have gleaned from what has been said between the Bench and the Bar table that one possibility in relation to timetabling is that the application for a stay be given a date for hearing and on that same date there be further consideration given to Ms Luck’s application for an extension of time in relation to filing material in the substantive matter. Does that strike you as a convenient course?
MR HORAN: It does, your Honour. We would be content to fit in with the timetable proposed for the other respondents. The University as eighth defendant, many of the matters that are raised in the application do not concern the University directly, but we would also propose to bring an application for some form of summary dismissal or stay in accordance with the same timetable as proposed.
HER HONOUR: Very well. Mr Knowles.
MR KNOWLES: I have no submissions to make.
HER HONOUR: Nothing to add?
MR KNOWLES: No, your Honour.
HER HONOUR: Ms Symon, in relation to a date for the hearing of the foreshadowed application under rule 27.09.4 one possibility would be Friday, 30 April, or do you seek a date in May?
MS SYMON: I would be embarrassed after 12 May, your Honour, but 30 April would be ‑ ‑ ‑
HER HONOUR: A convenient date.
MS SYMON: I am getting nods from my instructors.
HER HONOUR: Yes, very well. Yes, thank you, Ms Symon. This proceeding was commenced by an application for an order to ‑ ‑ ‑
MS LUCK: Your Honour, what about me?
HER HONOUR: I thought you had completed your ‑ ‑ ‑
MS LUCK: You have not asked me or you have not said to me is that date okay for you or anything.
HER HONOUR: I beg your pardon. I thought you wanted the date as soon as possible.
MS LUCK: Not for a stay application, no. I have not got – look, all these things I have got to do beforehand, you have even got me doing two special leave applications.
HER HONOUR: I beg your pardon, Ms Luck. The date I am proposing is 30 April or a date in May.
MS LUCK: Yes, your Honour. It makes no difference. I will do what I can and if it is not done, I will not be there. Thank you.
HER HONOUR: Well, Ms Luck ‑ ‑ ‑
MS LUCK: I will not be there as in put the documents in, that is all.
HER HONOUR: Well, Ms Luck, I had in mind excusing you from an obligation to put in written documents in order to ‑ ‑ ‑
MS LUCK: And then, your Honour, if I come here and I – why should I have to go without putting my written submissions in so the rest of the world can read them?
HER HONOUR: You can put them ‑ ‑ ‑
MS LUCK: And see them if ever this comes to the international court, which inevitably it looks like it is going to because I am not getting equal justice here.
HER HONOUR: May I just make it ‑ ‑ ‑
MS LUCK: Your Honour, that is not appropriate. I should be given this amount of time that it is necessary for me to make those documents, the same as these parties are.
HER HONOUR: Do you want to put in written documents or would you prefer ‑ ‑ ‑
MS LUCK: Your Honour, it is not a matter whether I want to or not. It is my right to and my right is to be made equal to every single one of those people there. They have huge firms of people running around doing all their work. Why should I not have a written document that is suitable to go before the Attorney‑General and before the international courts ‑ ‑ ‑
HER HONOUR: Ms Luck ‑ ‑ ‑
MS LUCK: If such an occasion was to occur ‑ ‑ ‑
HER HONOUR: ‑ ‑ ‑ can you just stop ‑ ‑ ‑
MS LUCK: ‑ ‑ ‑ I am entitled to be given the time.
HER HONOUR: Just stop now, Ms Luck. If you wish to put in written supporting material and written submissions, I will make a direction that you can do that.
MS LUCK: It is the date, your Honour.
HER HONOUR: I will give you ‑ ‑ ‑
MS LUCK: It is the date that is in question here. It is not ‑ ‑ ‑
HER HONOUR: I can give you until 7 May to put in your written documents. You receive the other sides’ documents on 16 April and I can make a date for hearing on something like 12 May?
MS LUCK: Yes, your Honour, make it 12 May. But, as I said, I cannot – I will take the opportunity to put written submissions in or not. That is what I believe is a fair thing, right, in my case, but ‑ ‑ ‑
HER HONOUR: Are you seeking a direction for time to put in written submissions or not?
MS LUCK: No, I am seeking to be treated with reasonable adjustments in the same manner as you would treat them.
HER HONOUR: I want you to understand that when I said to you before you could be excused from putting in written submissions ‑ ‑ ‑
MS LUCK: I accept that.
HER HONOUR: ‑ ‑ ‑ that was on the basis that you would be given an opportunity to put in oral submissions, so that everything that you might have put in your written submissions you will get an opportunity to put in your oral submissions. Anything that you might have put in supporting affidavit material, you would have an opportunity to put orally. I would permit you to give evidence orally.
MS LUCK: No, I do not think that would be fair, though, then, would it? I mean, I appreciate that you have given me that and I accepted that.
HER HONOUR: I am trying ‑ ‑ ‑
MS LUCK: Look, your Honour, I accepted that it would not preclude me from putting in written ‑ ‑ ‑
HER HONOUR: Written submissions, no.
MS LUCK: Correct. Now, that is fine, but it was the date.
HER HONOUR: All right.
MS LUCK: You have given me – what dates were the dates I am supposed to have ‑ ‑ ‑
HER HONOUR: Well, I am ‑ ‑ ‑
MS LUCK: Just a minute, please. What dates were the dates for the summary of argument for the special leave applications – 24th, was it not, of April?
HER HONOUR: I think it is the 23rd.
MS LUCK: And you think that that is all right ‑ ‑ ‑
HER HONOUR: Twenty third of April.
MS LUCK: ‑ ‑ ‑ for me to come one week later and then answer – seek an extension of time and deal with all these stay things? Please, your Honour, I mean, that is unreasonable.
HER HONOUR: Well, Ms Luck, we can ‑ ‑ ‑
MS LUCK: And it is unreasonable even in 12 May, to be quite honest, I think, for me. I know what I am capable of. My whole life is dedicated to trying to keep up with the Court’s unreasonable timeframes. I am not interested in whether they think it is fair to them. I am a disabled person who has special needs and I am entitled by law to those reasonable adjustments, and if you think that is what you have given me today is reasonable, I am sorry, your Honour, I am in total disagreement with you.
HER HONOUR: All right. Well, I ‑ ‑ ‑
MS LUCK: Because I know what I am capable of.
HER HONOUR: Yes.
MS LUCK: And I would ask that it be June, if need be, so that I have got not just – well, this month is over, then I have got April. I cannot change that. You have already made 24 April. Then to do a whole case and M85 with all this – what about this Deakin University, all these issues here? How are you going to stay those when the Federal Court has clearly – what is the Federal Court going to do? They are just going to walk away with all these abuses and collusions with the Auscript and all sorts of other things that have been going on in regard to the hearing of my matters and the judges – this judge here, the fourth defendant, who has quite clearly made the most unbelievable judgments about privacy issues with the University.
That is another thing, your Honour, and I would like to bring that to your attention now in regard to that decision by the judge that Mr Clarke has put on his submission, that they actually have said that they are not giving me – I am entitled to – that I have been charged with misconduct allegations and I have been asked for my privacy records, the University student record, so that I could answer those allegations and they have told me, and this is categorical, from here:
“Dear Ms Luck,
As stated in my email to you yesterday, Deakin University is not subject to the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), as confirmed by Justice Marshall of the Federal Court in Luck v Deakin University [2009] FCA 1032.”
HER HONOUR: Yes, thank you.
MS LUCK: Now, your Honour, how can anybody go to a university – and this is judge‑made law being used by the fifth defendant to prevent me from actually properly answering and responding to false allegations of misconduct that destroy my reputation, deny me access to the University’s classes that I am enrolled in and paid for, and these people here all try to stay this matter? Please.
HER HONOUR: Thank you, Ms ‑ ‑ ‑
MS LUCK: This is – I am getting very, very distressed and I cannot handle 12 May. I would not want to be able to come till even in June, please.
HER HONOUR: Ms Symon, could you respond to that?
MS LUCK: Thank you.
MS SYMON: Yes, your Honour. I am wondering if perhaps a date in the week starting 7 June might be appropriate.
HER HONOUR: Yes. What about Wednesday, 9 June?
MS SYMON: Yes, your Honour.
HER HONOUR: Thank you, Ms Symon. Does anyone wish to be heard further in relation to that also being the return date of the other applications? Yes, very well. Nothing further, Ms Luck?
MS LUCK: No, thank you, your Honour.
HER HONOUR: This proceeding was commenced by an application for an order to show cause filed on 16 September 2009 by the applicant. The substantive relief is for mandamus and other prerogative relief and for declarations and injunctions against a number of defendants in relation to certain Federal Court proceedings. It is alleged by the eighth defendant that the application for mandamus is made out of time in accordance with the time period fixed by rule 25.07.2.
By affidavits filed on 21 October 2009 and 29 October 2009 the applicant added a number of defendants to the matter and is seeking an extension of time within which to file supporting affidavits. In both affidavits the applicant deposes to suffering from various illnesses.
In relation to the fifth and the eighteenth defendants the applicant seeks a timetable today for the hearing of an application for urgent injunctive relief. The sixth, seventh and ninth defendants seek a timetable for directions in respect of a foreshadowed application under rule 27.09.4 for a stay. In relation to the substantive matter, the fifth defendant does not oppose the grant of a further extension of time provided directions are made for the provision of further and better particulars of the application.
It is convenient that the foreshadowed application of the sixth, seventh and ninth defendants be heard at the same time as the determination of the applicant’s application for an extension of time within which to file material in support of the substantive application. At that time, the fifth defendant’s request for further and better particulars can also be dealt with.
The orders I make are:
1.Leave be granted to the fifth defendant in accordance with rule 3.01.2 to amend the appearance to change it from a submitting appearance.
2.On or before 4.00 pm on Monday, 29 March 2010, the applicant file and serve any material upon which she wishes to rely in support of an application for an injunction against the fifth and eighteenth defendants, and a summary of argument.
3.On or before 4.00 pm on Wednesday, 31 March 2010, the fifth and eighteenth defendants file and serve any material upon which they wish to rely in response, and a summary of argument.
4.A hearing of the application for urgent injunctive relief be fixed at 10.15 am on Thursday, 1 April 2010.
5.On or before 16 April 2010, the sixth, seventh and ninth defendants file and serve any application under rule 27.09.4, together with supporting affidavits and a summary of argument.
6.The application for a stay be heard at 10.15 am on Wednesday, 9 June 2010.
7.The further hearing of the applicant’s request for an extension of time within which to file and serve supporting affidavits be adjourned until 10.15 am on Wednesday, 9 June 2010.
I will reserve the costs of today.
Adjourn until 2.15.
AT 1.00 PM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED
0