Ogawa v The Australian Human Rights Commission

[2014] FCCA 358

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

OGAWA v THE AUSTRALIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION & ANOR [2014] FCCA 358

Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Dismissal of proceedings for want of appearance.

Legislation:
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001, rr.13.03C(1)(c)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, s.32AB

Applicant: DR MEGUMI OGAWA

First Respondent: THE AUSTRALIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Second Respondent: CHARLES DARWIN UNIVERSITY

File Number: BRG 1095 of 2013

Judgment of: Judge Jarrett

Hearing date: 10 February 2014

Date of Last Submission: 10 February 2014

Delivered at: Brisbane

Delivered on: 10 February 2014

REPRESENTATION

There being no appearance by the Applicant

There being no appearance by the Respondents

ORDERS

1. Pursuant to rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 the application filed 11 November 2013 be dismissed.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AT BRISBANE

BRG 1095 of 2013

DR MEGUMI OGAWA

Applicant

And

THE AUSTRALIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

First Respondent

CHARLES DARWIN UNIVERSITY

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Ex tempore

1. This is an application filed in the Federal Court of Australia on 11 November, 2013 by Dr Megumi Ogawa seeking relief against the Australian Human Rights Commission and Charles Darwin University. The matter came before Collier J of the Federal Court in Brisbane on 29 November, 2013. On that day, her Honour ordered that the matter be transferred to this court pursuant to s.32AB of the Federal Court of Australia Act1976.  There were some other procedural orders made.  The matter was listed for directions before me today, and the parties to the application were notified of the listing.

2. There does not seem to be any doubt that both parties know of the listing today, first of all from the applicant’s point of view because there are a number of emails, none of which I have read but which have apparently passed between Dr Ogawa and my Associate, referrable to today’s hearing.  There is also an email from the first respondent to my Associate referrable to today’s hearing.  I have not read any of that correspondence, and as the parties will know, there is a protocol in place that deals with communications between parties and chambers.  There is nothing to suggest that any of that correspondence was sent to my Associate with the consent of the other party to the proceedings. 

3. The matter was listed for 9:30 am.  It was called at 9:30 or thereabouts and there has been no appearance by either the applicant or the respondent.  It is now about 9:57 am.  There is still no appearance for the applicant or the respondent. 

4. Accordingly, pursuant to rule 13.03C(1)(c), the application filed on 11 November 2013 is dismissed.

I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Jarrett delivered on 10 February, 2014

Associate: 

Date:  28 February 2014