Mathews v Telstra Corporation Ltd

[1996] FCA 1194

JUDGMENT No. .d..!.3!&0i? iBfke

NO QUESTION OF PRINCIPLE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

BETWEEN:

RUSSELL CORDON HAIG MATHEWS

APPLICANT

AND:

TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED

RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	DRUMMOND J
DATE OF ORDER:	24/05/96
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Proceedings number QG 144 of 1995 be transferred to the District Court of Queensland at Brisbane.

2. In proceedings number QG 144 of 1995, paragraph 1 of the amended application be struck out.

3. The costs of today will be costs in the proceedings.

Note:

Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court

Rules.

NO QUESTION OF PRINCIPLE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY QG 144 of 1995

BETWEEN:

RUSSELL GORDON HAIG MATHEWS

APPLICANT

AND:

TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED

RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	DRUMMOND J
DATE:	24/05/96
PLACE:	BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

I have before me an application by Mr Mathews against Telstra seeking injunctive relief and

damages under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) on a number of bases. Directions were given on 9 February to enable Mr Mathews to refine his case and put it in the form in which he wished to run it. He responded to that and it is apparent from the material filed that the conduct alleged against Telstra Corporation Limited in respect of which Mr Mathews sought injunctive relief has ceased, and he himself has confirmed today that he does not seek injunctive relief for that reason. The only other remedy he is seeking is in damages, as I say, on a number of bases.

One of the bases upon which he seeks damages is in respect of conduct alleged to have been engaged in by Telstra in breach of s 51AA. Notwithstanding the opportunity that Mr Mathews has had to refine his case and put it in the form in which he was satisfied to run it, he has completely failed to expose any foundation for a s 51AA claim. He indicated that he wishes an opportunity to amend, but it does not seem to me to be appropriate to grant that application given the history of the matter and, in particular, the ample opportunity Mr Mathews has had to, as I have repeatedly said, refine his case and put it in a form that he was satisfied to stand upon.

However, while it appears to me that the Magistrates Court is plainly the appropriate and

most economical forum in which what is, in truth, a claim for a very modest amount of damages should be heard, it would be inappropriate, in the absence of an application by Telstra to strike out the references in the proceedings to a case based on s 5 1 AA, to transfer the matter to the Magistrates Court. However, it is clear from s 68 the District Court Act 1967 (QId) that the District Court of Queensland has full jurisdiction to deal with such matters, even if it were to be thought appropriate to give Mr Mathews an opportunity to make yet another amendment to his proceedings.

Since I am not in a position where I feel that I can strike out the allegations in the

proceedings based upon s 5 1 AA, I will order that the proceeding be transferred to the District

Court of Queensland, recognising that that may be but another step in this matter ultimately finding its way into the forum in which, in my view, it is appropriate for it to be resolved in. The order of the Court therefore will be that proceedings number QG 144 of 1995 be transferred to the District Court of Queensland at Brisbane.

I certify that this and the preceding

one (1) page is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Drummond.

Associate: -/

Dated: 24/05/96

The Applicant appeared in person.

Solicitor for the Respondent:	Mallesons Stephen Jaques
Date of Hearing:	24 May 1996
Date of Judgment:	24 May 1996