Saje v Union for Progressive Judaism Inc. and Ors (No.3)

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SAJE v UNION FOR PROGRESSIVE JUDAISM INC. & ORS (No.3)

[2020] FCCA 340

Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Interlocutory application – applicant seeking order that no further documents be accepted for filing – applicant seeking order to strike out documents of the respondent – application in a case 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

The application in a case filed on 10 February 2020 is 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

The application in a case filed on 10 February 2020 is dismissed.
That application seeks orders that are not appropriate at this stage when the matter has been fixed for final hearing today.
Accordingly it is not appropriate to entertain the strike out application or the order for no further filing of documents.

I certify that the preceding three (3) 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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Saje, sought interlocutory orders against the respondents, the Union for Progressive Judaism Inc. and others, to prevent the filing of further documents and to strike out documents already filed by the respondents. The application was heard by Judge Street.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had established grounds for the extraordinary orders sought, specifically concerning the exclusion of further filings and the striking out of existing documents from the court's record.

Judge Street dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had not demonstrated the necessary legal basis to justify such severe interlocutory relief. The court applied the principles governing the exercise of its discretion to grant orders that effectively prevent a party from participating in proceedings or that remove their filed documents, requiring a high threshold of proof and compelling justification, which was not met in this instance.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established