Walker v Telstra Corporation Ltd

Case [2008] FCA 1165


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Walker v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2008] FCA 1165

KELL WALKER v TELSTRA CORPORATION LTD

NSD 153 OF 2007

EMMETT J
18 JULY 2008
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 153 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

KELL WALKER
Applicant

AND:

TELSTRA CORPORATION LTD
Respondent

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

18 JULY 2008

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The motion filed on 28 February 2007 be otherwise dismissed.

2.The application be dismissed.

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

NSD 153 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

KELL WALKER
Applicant

AND:

TELSTRA CORPORATION LTD
Respondent

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE:

18 JULY 2008

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This proceeding was commenced by an application filed on 2 February 2007.  The respondent, Telstra Corporation Limited (Telstra), appears to have made clear to the applicant, through a person appearing for the applicant, that it regarded the proceeding as an abuse of process. 

  2. The matter came before Allsop J on several occasions.  On 24 July 2007, his Honour ordered that the application filed on 2 February 2007 be stayed.  That order was made on a motion filed on behalf of Telstra on 28 February 2007.

  3. By that motion, Telstra sought an order that the application be dismissed or that the proceeding be permanently stayed.  Apart from alternative orders, the motion also sought an order that the applicant and his solicitor pay Telstra’s costs of and incidental to the motion on an indemnity basis.

  4. On 24 July 2007, Allsop J also ordered that the applicant pay Telstra’s costs of the motion and the proceeding on an indemnity basis.  However, his Honour declined at that stage to make any order against Ms Sue Owens, who was purporting to appear for and act for the applicant.  Instead, his Honour ordered that Telstra provide a copy of his Honour’s reasons and orders to Ms Owens.  His Honour directed that the notice of motion, insofar as it sought orders against Ms Owens, be stood over to a date to be fixed for hearing.  In addition, his Honour granted leave to Telstra to fix a date for the further hearing of the motion insofar as it was still on foot in relation to the claim for costs against Ms Owens. 

  5. No further step has been taken by Telstra or by the applicant.  However, following the retirement of Allsop J from this Court, Ms Owens, whose address is the address for service for the applicant, and Telstra were notified that the matter would be listed for directions today.  The solicitors for Telstra informed my associate informally that Telstra did not wish to appear today and would not oppose the dismissal of the proceedings, so far as there was anything remaining on foot.

  6. When the matter was called on for hearing today there was no appearance for any party.  In all of the circumstances, it seems to me to be appropriate that the proceeding be brought to an end.  I therefore propose to order that the motion of 28 February 2007 be otherwise dismissed and that the proceeding itself be dismissed. 

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett.

Associate:

Dated:       10 September 2008

There was no appearance by the parties.
Date of Hearing: 18 July 2008
Date of Judgment: 18 July 2008
Details
AGLC
Walker v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2008] FCA 1165
Case
[2008] FCA 1165
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Walker v Telstra Corporation Ltd was heard before the court. The plaintiff, Walker, brought a claim against Telstra Corporation Ltd, seeking relief in relation to certain telecommunications services. The dispute centred on the terms of the contract between the parties and the alleged breaches by the defendant.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the contract contained specific terms that obliged Telstra to provide certain services and whether the company had breached these terms. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the plaintiff had suffered damages as a result of any such breaches.

In delivering the judgment, the court examined the contract and found that it did not contain any explicit terms that required Telstra to provide the services in question. The court emphasised that the contract was clear in its scope and that any obligations were strictly limited to what was explicitly stated. The court also noted that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that any alleged breaches resulted in actual damages. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims, holding that there were no breaches of contract by Telstra.

The court then dismissed the motion and the application, with the orders reflecting that the claims were unfounded and that no relief should be granted to the plaintiff.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The motion filed on 28 February 2007 be otherwise dismissed.

2. The application be dismissed.

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

EMMETT J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: EMMETT J

Full text does not contain this section.