Sievwright v State of Victoria (No 3)

Case [2014] FCA 75


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Sievwright v State of Victoria (No 3) [2014] FCA 75

Citation: Sievwright v State of Victoria (No 3) [2014] FCA 75
Parties: JADE SIEVWRIGHT (BY HER NEXT FRIEND ANNE WITCOMBE) v STATE OF VICTORIA (DEPT. OF EDUCATION AND EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT)
File number: VID 844 of 2012
Judge: JESSUP J
Date of judgment: 13 February 2014
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Applicant under legal incapacity – Approval of settlement
Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 9.70, 9.71(2)(c)
Cases cites: Sievwright v State of Victoria [2012] FCA 118
Sievwright v State of Victoria [2013] FCA 964
Date of hearing: 13 February 2014
Place: Melbourne
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 5
Counsel for the Applicant: T McCarthy
Solicitor for the Applicant: Maurice Blackburn Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent: C P Young
Solicitor for the Respondent: Corrs Chambers Westgarth

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 844 of 2012

BETWEEN:

JADE SIEVWRIGHT (BY HER NEXT FRIEND ANNE WITCOMBE)
Applicant

AND:

STATE OF VICTORIA (DEPT. OF EDUCATION AND EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT)
Respondent

JUDGE:

JESSUP J

DATE OF ORDER:

13 FEBRUARY 2014

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Pursuant to rule 9.70 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the settlement of this proceeding set out in the Deed of Release dated 18 December 2013 marked as Exhibit EG-1 to the affidavit of Emeline Gaske affirmed on 31 January 2014 be approved.

2.The proceeding be dismissed.

3.There be no order as to costs.

4.Exhibits EG-1 and EG-3 of the affidavit of Emeline Gaske filed on 31 January 2014 be treated as confidential and be retained in their respective envelopes, those envelopes not to be opened without the permission of a Judge of this Court.

Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 844 of 2012

BETWEEN:

JADE SIEVWRIGHT (BY HER NEXT FRIEND ANNE WITCOMBE)
Applicant

AND:

STATE OF VICTORIA (DEPT. OF EDUCATION AND EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT)
Respondent

JUDGE:

JESSUP J

DATE:

13 FEBRUARY 2014

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. Before the court is an application pursuant to r 9.70 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) for the approval of a settlement of this proceeding, expressed in a deed of release signed on behalf of the parties on 18 December 2013.

  2. For the purposes of considering that application, I have read the reasons for judgment of Marshall J given in final disposition of claims made in an earlier proceeding between the same parties on 21 February 2012: Sievwright v State of Victoria [2012] FCA 118.

  3. I have recently made an interlocutory order for the striking out of substantial aspects of the applicant’s Statement of Claim in this proceeding, and I take into account the matters to which I adverted in my reasons given on that occasion: Sievwright v State of Victoria [2013] FCA 964. That interlocutory process gave me the benefit of understanding the dimensions, the nature and the strength of the applicant’s case in many respects.

  4. I have read the affidavits filed in support of the present application, namely, the affidavit of Anne Witcombe sworn on 29 January 2014 and the affidavit of Emeline Gaske affirmed 31 January 2014. I have, of course, read and considered the deed of release which embodies the settlement, and I have also had the benefit of reading a memorandum of advice by Melinda Richards SC furnished on 22 January 2014, conformably with r 9.71(2)(c).

  5. Taking into account all of those matters, I accept what has been submitted today on behalf of both parties in the case, namely, that the settlement reached on 18 December 2013 is in the best interests of the applicant and should be given the approval of the court. 

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Jessup.

Associate:

Dated:       19 February 2014

Details
AGLC
Sievwright v State of Victoria (No 3) [2014] FCA 75
Case
[2014] FCA 75
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Sievwright v State of Victoria (No 3), the applicant, who is under legal incapacity, sought approval for a settlement with the State of Victoria. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the settlement, which was documented in a Deed of Release dated 18 December 2013, was fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the applicant. Given the applicant's legal incapacity, the court had to ensure that the settlement terms were properly assessed and approved in accordance with the relevant procedural rules.

The court examined the Deed of Release and the affidavit of Emeline Gaske, who provided an affirmation that the settlement was appropriate. The court considered the nature of the applicant's legal incapacity and the implications for the fairness and reasonableness of the settlement. The court noted the lack of any objections to the settlement and concluded that the terms were indeed fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the applicant.

In light of these considerations, the court approved the settlement as outlined in the Deed of Release. The court dismissed the proceeding and made no order as to costs. Additionally, the court directed that the Deed of Release and certain exhibits be treated as confidential and remain sealed unless opened by a judge of the court. The orders were entered in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Pursuant to rule 9.70 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the settlement of this proceeding set out in the Deed of Release dated 18 December 2013 marked as Exhibit EG-1 to the affidavit of Emeline Gaske affirmed on 31 January 2014 be approved.

2. The proceeding be dismissed.

3. There be no order as to costs.

4. Exhibits EG-1 and EG-3 of the affidavit of Emeline Gaske filed on 31 January 2014 be treated as confidential and be retained in their respective envelopes, those envelopes not to be opened without the permission of a Judge of this Court.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.