Luck v Hunter

Case [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 1st, 2nd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th 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
Details
AGLC
Luck v Hunter [2000] FCA 1216
Case
[2000] FCA 1216
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Luck, the Applicant, sought leave to appeal a decision that had been made in the Family Court of Australia in 2000. Hunter and other respondents were the parties against whom the application was made. Luck sought to appeal a decision in relation to child support payments that had been made by the Family Court. The case came before the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia, which was required to determine whether Luck was entitled to leave to appeal the decision of the Family Court.

The court was required to determine whether Luck had demonstrated that there was a serious question to be tried that was likely to result in a different outcome to that which was reached by the Family Court. The court also needed to determine whether Luck had demonstrated that it was in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal. In determining whether there was a serious question to be tried, the court considered the arguments made by both parties and the evidence that had been presented. The court also considered whether the Family Court had erred in law or made a significant error of fact that was likely to result in a different outcome.

The court found that Luck had not demonstrated that there was a serious question to be tried that was likely to result in a different outcome. The court also found that it was not in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal. The court noted that the Family Court had considered the evidence and made findings of fact that were open to it. The court found that the Family Court had not erred in law or made a significant error of fact that was likely to result in a different outcome. The court also noted that the appeal was unlikely to succeed and that the costs of the appeal would be significant. The court therefore dismissed the application for leave to appeal and ordered that Luck pay the costs of the respondents.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.

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

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.