Saje v Union for Progressive Judaism Inc. and Ors (No.2)

[2020] FCCA 339

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SAJE v UNION FOR PROGRESSIVE JUDAISM INC. & ORS (No.2) [2020] FCCA 339

Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Interlocutory application – respondents seeking leave to file an amended points of defence – respondents seeking production of un-redacted documents from the applicant – leave granted to respondents to rely upon amended points of defence – application in a case otherwise dismissed.

Applicant: LEENA SAJE

First Respondent: UNION FOR PROGRESSIVE JUDAISM INC.

Second Respondent: JOEL MENDELSON

Third Respondent: STEPHEN FREEMAN

Fourth Respondent: JOCELYN ROBUCK

Fifth Respondent: STEVE DANENBERG

Sixth Respondent: ROGER MENDELSON

File Number: PEG 715 of 2017

Judgment of: Judge Street

Hearing date: 19 February 2020

Date of Last Submission: 19 February 2020

Delivered at: PERTH

Delivered on: 19 February 2020

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant appeared in person.

Counsel for the Respondents: Ms P Giles

Solicitors for the Respondents: MinterEllison

ORDERS

1. Leave is granted to the respondents to rely upon the amended points of defence annexed to the affidavit of Jenny Maree McKenzie sworn 12 February 2020 and an electronic copy of the same be filed and served on or before 5:00pm on 21 February 2020.

2. The application in a case filed on 12 February 2020 is otherwise dismissed.

DATE OF ORDER: 19 February 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT PERTH

PEG 715 of 2017

LEENA SAJE

Applicant

And

UNION FOR PROGRESSIVE JUDAISM INC

First Respondent

JOEL MENDELSON

Second Respondent

STEPHEN FREEMAN

Third Respondent

JOCELYN ROBUCK

Fourth Respondent

STEVE DANENBERG

Fifth Respondent

ROGER MENDELSON

Sixth Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application in a case for leave to amend the points of defence in the form of an annexure to the affidavit. 

2. The amendment is opposed by the applicant, who suggests that the defence is seeking to withdraw admissions. 

3. Leave will be required if the amendments were ones that gave rise to the withdrawal of admissions. On the proper understanding of the proposed amended points of defence, it is not one which requires leave in respect of the withdrawing of any admissions. It is simply seeking to make clearer the defence advanced by the respondents. 

4. The respondents are also seeking in their application in a case, filed on 12 February 2020, un-redacted documents of a kind that, on their face appear completely irrelevant to the case. The Court is not satisfied it is appropriate to make the orders. 

5. The application in a case filed on 12 February 2020 is otherwise dismissed.

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the transcript of the published oral reasons for judgement of Judge Street delivered in open Court on 19 February 2020 and the parties were provided sealed copies of the Court’s orders.

Associate: 

Date: 29 April 2020