Von Reisner v Commonwealth

[2007] FCA 1959

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Von Reisner v Commonwealth [2007] FCA 1959

KOIDU VON REISNER v COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA AND STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES

NSD1540 OF 2007

FLICK J
30 NOVEMBER 2007
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD1540 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

KOIDU VON REISNER
First Applicant

SALLY RAAD
Second Applicant

AND:

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
First Respondent

STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	FLICK J
DATE OF ORDER:	30 NOVEMBER 2007
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS:

1.The Application and Statement of Claim, as against the First Respondent, be dismissed.

2.The Application and Statement of Claim, as against the Second Respondent, be dismissed.

3.Costs are reserved.

4.Any Amended Application and any Amended Statement of Claim is to be filed and served by 5 pm on 29 February 2008.

5.The matter stood over for mention at 9.30 am on 10 March 2008. 

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD1540 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

KOIDU VON REISNER
First Applicant

SALLY RAAD
Second Applicant

AND:

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
First Respondent

STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	FLICK J
DATE:	30 NOVEMBER 2007
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 7 August 2007 the Applicants commenced proceedings in this Court against the Commonwealth as First Respondent and the State of New South Wales as Second Respondent.  An Affidavit in support of the Applicants’ case was filed on 13 August 2007. 

   THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS

2. Presently before the Court are three Notices of Motion, one filed on behalf of the Applicants, one filed on behalf of the First Respondent and one filed on behalf of the Second Respondent.

3. At the outset of the proceedings the First Applicant foreshadowed that she wished to amend both the Application and the Statement of Claim.  The position of the First and Second Respondents was that there were Motions before the Court seeking orders under s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), or in the alternative, O 20 r 5, of the Federal Court Rules 1979 (Cth).  The Respondents asked for the Court to hear their Motions.

4. Also at the outset of the proceedings, an Application was made by the Applicants to adjourn the hearing of the Respondents’ Notices of Motion.  That Application to adjourn was refused.  There was little evidence before the Court as to what steps had been undertaken by the Applicants subsequent to the filing of their proceedings on 7 August 2007.  There were assertions, however, that the Applicants had made freedom of information requests, presumably to the Commonwealth.  Irrespective of what steps have been taken subsequent to 7 August, the Respondents’ Motions were set down for hearing by Gyles J and for hearing today.  The first intimation that an Application would be made to adjourn the hearing of those Motions was at the outset of these…