Wagdy Hanna & Associates Pty Ltd v National Library of Australia

[2014] HCASL 222

WAGDY HANNA & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD

v

NATIONAL LIBRARY OF AUSTRALIA

[2014] HCASL 222
C5/2014

1. In 1996 the respondent ("the NLA") called for tenders for the provision of a repository.  The applicant lodged a tender but the NLA awarded the tender to another company.

2. In 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings against the NLA in the Federal Court of Australia.  Those proceedings were settled and a Deed of Settlement was made between the applicant and the NLA.

3. In May 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings against the NLA in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory claiming that the NLA had breached a duty of confidence by discussing some information included in the applicant's tender and that the NLA had been unjustly enriched because the applicant's ideas and concepts were used in the final design of the repository.

4. The applicant's claims were heard between 2 and 12 December 2008.  Judgment in the matter was not given by the trial judge (Refshauge ACJ) until 3 August 2012 when orders were made dismissing the applicant's claims.

5. The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory.  The appeal was not heard until 20 February 2014.  On 21 August 2014 the Court of Appeal (Penfold, Burns and Cowdroy JJ) dismissed the appeal.

6. The applicant seeks special leave to appeal to this Court. Because the applicant is not legally represented, the application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004.

7. The applicant alleges (among other things) that the findings of fact made by the trial judge "were infected by substantial error due to the extensive delay" in delivering judgment.  The delay in delivery of judgment was inordinate.  The claims made by the applicant were, however, rightly held to be barred by the Deed of Settlement made in respect of the proceedings it had instituted in the Federal Court.  Even if the other matters of which the applicant complains were established, the claims it made against the NLA in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory must fail.

8. The applicant therefore shows no arguable reason to doubt the correctness of the actual orders made by the Court of Appeal.

9. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

K.M. Hayne
10 December 2014 S.M. Crennan