a
| . | -79s Jw |
JUDGMENT No. ., , , , . IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
1
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. NG 374 of 1994 )
GENERAL DIVISION 1
BETWEEN: THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Applicant
AND: MARK JOHN BRANDON
Respondent
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
1
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. NG 375 of 1994 )
GENERAL DIVISION )
BETWEEN: THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Applicant
AND: MICHAEL JOHN ROCK
Respondent
JUDGE HAKING OORERS: FOSTER J DATE : 1 NOVEMBER 1994 PLACE r SYDNEY
B: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
FEDERAL COURT 0,
AUSTRALIA
S N O T E OF
ORDERS
PRINCIPAL REQISTR*
P:
1. the Commonwealth's Notices of Motion be dismissed in each case.
2. in each case the Commonwealth pay the applicant's costs of the Notice of Motion.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) 1 NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. NG 374 of 1994 )
GENERAL DIVISION 1
BETWEEN: THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Applicant
m: MAFlK JOHN BRANDON
Respondent
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
) )
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. NG 375 of 1994 1
GENERAL DIVISION 1
BETWEEN: THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Applicant
AND: MICHAEL JOHN ROCK
Respondent
CORAH: FOSTER J
1 NOVEMBER 1994PIACE: SYDNEY HIS EOnOUR: In both these cases the respondent has pleaded defences similar to those pleaded in the matter of m. In
these cases, however, it is not suggested that any relevant limitation period had expired before the coming into effect of
. .
s 44 of the SBfetv R n o - and Comoensation Act 1988 (Cth). It would appear, however, that any relevant limitation period has since expired and that accordingly the actions can proceed only if an extension of time is granted. In my view, for reasons substantially similar to those I have given in
B, it cannot be said that either the actions themselves
or the applications for extension of time are so untenable as
to warrant their being struck out.
Accordingly, I make the following orders:
1. That the Commonwealth's Notices of Motion be dismissed in
each came.
2. That in each case the Commonwealth pay the applicant's
costs of the Notice of Motion.
I certify that this and the preceding one (1) page are a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein of the Honourable Mr Justice M. L. Foster.
Associate: Date : 1 NOVEMBER 1994
- AGLC
- The Commonwealth of Australia v Brandon, M.J [1994] FCA 795
- Case
- [1994] FCA 795
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Justice Foster considered the submissions made in relation to the limitation periods and the applicability of s 44 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth). He found that while the relevant limitation periods had expired, the actions and applications for extension of time were not so untenable as to warrant their being struck out. The judge referenced his previous reasoning in a related matter, indicating consistency in the approach to such cases.
As a result, the court dismissed the Commonwealth's Notices of Motion in both cases. Additionally, the court ordered that the Commonwealth pay the respondents' costs of the Notices of Motion. The decision underscores the court's view that while the limitation periods had lapsed, the actions and applications were not without merit to the extent of warranting outright dismissal.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.