Luck v Hunter

[2000] FCA 1216

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Luck v Hunter [2000] FCA 1216

GAYE LUCK v DR ROSS B HUNTER & ORS

V 392 of 2000
V 393 of 2000
V 394 of 2000
V 541 of 2000

BURCHETT, R D NICHOLSON AND FINKELSTEIN JJ
23 AUGUST 2000
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	V 392 of 2000 V 393 of 2000 V 394 of 2000 V 541 of 2000

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	GAYE LUCK Applicant
AND:	DR ROSS B HUNTER & ORS Respondents
JUDGES:	BURCHETT, R D NICHOLSON AND FINKELSTEIN JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	23 AUGUST 2000
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.

2.The Applicant pay the costs of the 1^st, 2^nd, 5^th, 6^th, 7^th, 8^th and 9^th Respondents in matter no. V 392 of 2000, not to be taxed before the completion of the principal proceedings.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	V 393 of 2000

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

GAYE LUCK
Applicant

AND:

ROSLYN BROWNE
First Respondent

HONEYCOMBES TOWNSVILLE PTY LTD
Second Respondent

SIMON HORNE
Third Respondent

DEBBIE GILCHRIST
Fourth Respondent

COLIN BROWNE
Fifth Respondent

JUDGES:	BURCHETT, R D NICHOLSON AND FINKELSTEIN JJ
DATE:	23 AUGUST 2000
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	V 394 of 2000

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	GAYE LUCK Applicant
AND:	CSR LIMITED (BRADFORD INSULATION GROUP), CSR EXCELLENT DESIGN PTY LTD, BRADFORD INSULATION INDUSTRIES PTY LIMITED, B I (CONTRACTING) PTY LIMITED, BRADFORD INSULATION (SA) PTY LIMITED, CRS (GEOMATICS) PTY LTD, INSULCO PTY LTD/TASMAN INSULATION AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED, ACI PTY LTD, ACI WORLDWIDE (PACIFIC) PTY LTD, ACI PINK SUPERBATTS, PETER JAMES HAYES, WATTLEFIELD PTY LTD, PYNEBOARD PTY LTD, AUSTRALIAN GYPSUM LTD, AUSTRALIAN GYPSUM INDUSTRIES LTD, PLASTERGLASS PTY LTD, STANDARD PLASTERGLASS PTY LTD, PILKINGTON (AUSTRALIA) PRPERTIES LIMITED, PILKINGTON ACILIMITED, PILKINGTON ACI OPERATIONS PTY LTD, PILKINGTON AUSTRALASIA LIMITED, PILKINGTON (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED, OWENS CORNING AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED, ACI FIBREGLASS/ACI INSULATION, ACI FIBREGLASS LIMITED/ACI INSULATION, INSULATION SOLUTIONS PTY LTD, ACI GLASS INSULATORS PROPRIETARY LIMITED, ACI SISALATION PTY LTD/SISALATION PTY LTD, ACI OPERATIONS PTY LTD, INSULFLUF AUSTRALIA PTY LTD, AMATEK LIMITED, ROCLA LIMITED, MR K G WIENEKE, MRS J WIENEKE, CEILFIX PTY LTD, CEILFIX PTY LIMITED, CEILFIX BUILDING SERVICES PTY LTD, COLIN CAMERON Respondents
JUDGES:	BURCHETT,  R D NICHOLSON AND FINKELSTEIN JJ
DATE:	23 AUGUST 2000
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	V 541 of 2000

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

GAYE LUCK
Applicant

AND:

TOWNSVILLE CITY COUNCIL
First Respondent

WOLF SETZINGER
Second Respondent

MICHAEL COLLARD
Third Respondent

GRANT STEEN
Fourth Respondent

STATE OF QUEENSLAND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Fifth Respondent

STATE OF QUEENSLAND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
Sixth Respondent

CHRIS McNAMARA
Seventh Respondent

JUDGES:	BURCHETT, R D NICHOLSON AND FINKELSTEIN JJ
DATE:	23 AUGUST 2000
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	V 392 of 2000

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

GAYE LUCK
Applicant

AND:

DR ROSS B HUNTER
First Respondent

R B HUNTER (MEDICAL PTY LTD
Second Respondent

NOCDOC
Third Respondent

DR D McALPINE
Fourth Respondent

P W KERRISK (TOWNSVILLE) PTY LTD T/A AITKENVALE MEDICAL CENTRE
Fifth Respondent

DR PETER BUCHANAN
Sixth Respondent

DR HENRY LAU
Seventh Respondent

CONSULTANT PATHOLOGISTS (TOWNSVILLE PTY LTD
Eighth Respondent

DR GRANT WITHEY
Ninth Respondent

QUEENSLAND X-RAY SERVICES
Tenth Respondent

JUDGES:	BURCHETT, R D NICHOLSON AND FINKELSTEIN JJ
DATE:	23 AUGUST 2000
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BURCHETT J

1. What I am about to say represents the reasons for judgment of the Court.  There is no ground of legal principle to justify a grant of leave in these cases to appeal against the interlocutory orders that were made.  There was no error of principle by the trial judge and no proven miscarriage of justice.  The orders transferring the various proceedings say nothing about how or where interlocutory proceedings should be dealt with.  It is evident that there is a potential for significant interlocutory applications in these matters.  The order does not preclude a judge ordering that a particular interlocutory hearing take place in Melbourne, or elsewhere, before that judge, or before some other judge.

2. There may be circumstances in which it could be unfair to require the Applicant to conduct an interlocutory hearing by video-link. We are quite sure the judge who decides that will take the Applicant's particular difficulties into account, and the refusal of leave today must not be taken as preventing the judge taking any particular course.  As the matter was raised during argument, we should point out that the Rules of Court permit a party to file documents at a registry other than the registry to which the matter is assigned. 

3. The formal order of the Court is that the application for leave to appeal be dismissed.  The Applicant must pay the costs of those Respondents who appeared and have sought their costs, but there is to be no taxation until the completion of the principal proceedings.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Court.

Associate:

Dated:             30 August 2000

The Applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the 1st, 2nd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th Respondents (V 392 of 2000):	Mr P J Riordan
Solicitors for the 1st, 2nd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th Respondents (V 392 of 2000):	Tress Cocks and Maddox
Counsel for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents (V 541 of 2000):	Mr P Mayberry
Solicitors for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents (V 541 of 2000):	Mahonys
Date of Hearing:	23 August 2000
Date of Judgment:	23 August 2000