Ogawa v The University of Melbourne

[2005] FCA 1208

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Ogawa v The University of Melbourne [2005] FCA 1208

MEGUMI OGAWA  v  THE UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE

V788 of 2004

RYAN J

30 AUGUST 2005
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	V788 of 2004

BETWEEN:	MEGUMI OGAWA Applicant
AND:	THE UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE Respondent
ORDERS IN CHAMBERS
JUDGE:	RYAN J
DATE OF ORDER:	30 AUGUST 2005
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Leave to appeal from the orders of the Federal Magistrates Court made on 11 June 2004 be refused.

2.The application by notice of motion filed herein on 18 June 2004 be dismissed.

3.There be no order as to the costs of either party of the said application herein.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	V788 of 2004

BETWEEN:	MEGUMI OGAWA Applicant
AND:	THE UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE Respondent
JUDGE:	RYAN J
DATE:	30 AUGUST 2005
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR ORDERS IN CHAMBERS OF 30 AUGUST 2005

1. By notice of motion filed herein on 22 March 2005 the applicant sought, amongst other things, that the hearing and determination of her application be expedited and that the hearing be conducted by way of videolink to Brisbane.  The substantive application in these proceedings numbered V788 of 2004 was commenced on 18 June 2004 and was for leave to appeal from certain orders as to costs made by Phipps FM in the Federal Magistrates Court on 11 June 2004.  Those orders were that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of a motion on notice dated 26 March 2004 such costs to be taxed but that the costs of a hearing in the Federal Magistrates Court on 11 June 2004 be reserved.

2. Before the filing of the applicant’s motion on notice dated 22 March 2005, the respondent (“the University”) had indicated by facsimile to the Court that it was “willing to refrain from enforcing the costs order in its favour … until the determination of this proceeding.”

3. By order made herein on 6 April 2005, I directed, amongst other things, that:

   ‘1.The motion on notice by the applicant dated 18 June 2004 returnable in Melbourne on 11 April 2005 and the further motion on notice by the applicant dated 21 March 2005 returnable in Melbourne at 2.15 pm on 11 April 2005 each be adjourned to be heard in Brisbane at 10.15 am on 26 April 2005.

   2.Subject to any further or other direction of the Judge hearing the said motions on 26 April 2005, they be heard together with or immediately before or after the motion on notice dated 18 March 2005 in proceedings numbered QUD 245 of 2004 by the abovenamed respondent (“the University of Melbourne”).’

4. At the end of the hearing in Brisbane on 26 April, I reserved judgment on the University’s application in proceedings QUD 245 of 2004 and adjourned, until the delivery of that judgment, the applicant’s motion in the present proceedings V788 of 2004.  Reasons for judgment in QUD245 of 2004 were published on 22 August 2005 when I made orders, amongst others, in those proceedings that:

   ‘1.       The proceedings herein be stayed until further order. 

   2.The applicant obtain the leave of a Judge before filing and serving in this Court any application, motion or process against the respondent including any application or motion to discharge or vary the stay granted by paragraph 1 of this Order.’

5. In the meantime, Phipps FM had, on 8 August 2005, made a final order dismissing the application in the Federal Magistrates Court in which the orders as to costs noted at [1] above had been made. On 18 August 2005, his Honour made a further order that the applicant pay the University’s costs fixed in the sum of $58,000. As I understand it, that order comprehended all the costs incurred by the University in the proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Court including those which his Honour had earlier directed to be taxed when he made his orders of 11 June 2004 noted at [1] above.

6. It is clear that the earlier orders of 11 June 2004, including the direction for taxation of costs have been overtaken by events.  Accordingly, no purpose can now be served by a grant of leave to appeal from those orders.  The appropriate order to dispose of the present proceedings is to refuse leave to appeal from the orders of the Federal Magistrates Court of 11 June 2004.  There will be no order as to the costs of either party of the present proceedings in this Court numbered V788 of 2004.  Of course, neither the making of those orders nor anything in these reasons will affect the applicant’s rights, subject to paragraph 2 of my order of 22 August 2005, to appeal from the orders of the Federal Magistrates Court of 8 and 18 August 2005.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Orders in Chambers herein of the Honourable Justice Ryan.

Associate:

Dated:            30 August 2005

Solicitor for the Applicant:	The applicant was self-represented.
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Minter Ellison
Date of Reasons for Order:	30 August 2005