Puglisi, Joseph v Australian Fisheries Management Authority Summary

LIMITED DISTRIBUTION

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. NG 48 of 1996 GENERAL DIVISION )

BETWEEN: JOSEPH PUGLISI
Applicant

AND:              AUSTRALIAN FISHERIES
  MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
  Respondent

CORAM:       TAMBERLIN J
PLACE:       SYDNEY
DATED:       15 MAY 1996

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

TAMBERLIN J:

In this matter, the respondent seeks to file and rely on an affidavit of Barry Charles Kaufman giving expert evidence in relation to the question of economic efficiency. This is a live issue in the case. The matter was foreshadowed on the last occasion and the affidavit was handed to the court and the applicant was put on notice as to its terms. There is one month to go before the hearing of this matter. I am informed by counsel for the respondent that it is intended to mount an argument on the basis of this evidence concerning the question of economic efficiency. Although it is a question of statutory construction, to some extent, it is necessary to look at the matrix and understanding in the industry as to the meaning of economic efficiency.

Accordingly, I propose to allow this affidavit to be filed and suject to objections to be read.

I am informed by counsel for the applicant that there has been some difficulty in obtaining an expert to deal with this evidence but given the time that the material has been made known and the time to expire before the next hearing I think that there is an ample opportunity to deal with this evidence and I propose to allow it in.

Every effort will be made on the part of the court to ensure that this matter is completed in the time available on the next occasion. It may be that I can make an extra day available in that week. It is not quite certain at the present time but if we have to sit extended hours I am prepared to do so in order to complete the case. Every effort will be made in that respect.

I reserve any question of costs relating to the late filing of the affidavit so that matter can be addressed after the case has been heard and judgment given.

The parties can, to a large extent in my view, mould the way the case is run in order to use the time most efficiently so far as cross-examination is concerned and I will be most anxious to ensure that undue time is not taken in extensive cross-examination with a view to finishing the matter on an urgent basis.

I certify that this and
the preceding two (2)
pages are a true copy of the
Reasons for Judgment herein of
his Honour Justice Tamberlin.

Associate:

Date: 15 May 1996

Counsel for Applicant: Mr R Harper

Solicitor for Applicant: A P Sparke & Broad

Counsel for Respondent: Mr P Roberts

Solicitor for Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

Date of Hearing: 15 May 1996

Date Judgment Delivered: 15 May 1996

Joseph Puglisi has filed an application against the Australian Fisheries Management Authority. The central issue is whether an affidavit from Barry Charles Kaufman, providing expert evidence on economic efficiency, can be filed and relied upon by the respondent. This affidavit is a live issue in the case, and the respondent intends to base an argument on it concerning economic efficiency. The court was required to determine if the affidavit could be admitted despite the late filing and whether it was fair to allow the expert evidence given the limited time before the next hearing.

The court considered the timing of the affidavit, noting that it had been foreshadowed and handed to the court and the applicant one month before the next hearing. The court acknowledged that there had been difficulties in obtaining an expert to counter the evidence but believed that the time provided was sufficient to address the evidence. The court also noted that it would make every effort to ensure the matter was completed in the available time, possibly extending hours if necessary. The court reserved the question of costs relating to the late filing, deciding to address it after the case had been heard and judgment given.

In summary, the court allowed the affidavit to be filed and read, subject to any objections. It reserved costs for later determination and emphasised the importance of using time efficiently during the next hearing. The decision was made to ensure the matter was completed within the available time frame.

Puglisi, Joseph v Australian Fisheries Management Authority

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established