Wills v Morris [No 2]

[2008] FCA 1413

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Wills v Morris [No 2] [2008] FCA 1413

ANDREW C WILLS v CINDY MORRIS, ROSS STEWART, RUSSELL SMITH, STEVE DESCHAMP, RONAN CHARLES, CRAIG BALLANTYNE, BRAD REID, COMMUNITY TELEVISION PERTH INC, CHANNEL 31, AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION AUSTRALIA, AUSTAR and FOXTEL

WAD 370 OF 2006

GILMOUR J
16 SEPTEMBER 2008
PERTH

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	WAD 370 OF 2006

BETWEEN:	ANDREW C WILLS Applicant
AND:	CINDY MORRIS ROSS STEWART RUSSELL SMITH STEVE DESCHAMP RONAN CHARLES CRAIG BALLANTYNE BRAD REID COMMUNITY TELEVISION PERTH INC CHANNEL 31 AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION AUSTRALIA AUSTAR FOXTEL
JUDGE:	GILMOUR J
DATE OF ORDER:	16 SEPTEMBER 2008
WHERE MADE:	PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The proceedings against the fourth-named respondent, Mr Steve Deschamp, be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the fourth-named respondent’s costs of and incidental to the notice of motion dated 22 July 2008 and the costs of the proceedings generally  including any reserved costs.  

3.The Application dated 19 December 2006 against the first, second, third, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, eleventh and twelfth named respondents 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
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	WAD 370 OF 2006

BETWEEN:	ANDREW C WILLS Applicant
AND:	CINDY MORRIS ROSS STEWART RUSSELL SMITH STEVE DESCHAMP RONAN CHARLES CRAIG BALLANTYNE BRAD REID COMMUNITY TELEVISION PERTH INC CHANNEL 31 AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION AUSTRALIA AUSTAR FOXTEL

JUDGE:	GILMOUR J
DATE:	16 SEPTEMBER 2008
PLACE:	PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The fourth-named respondent, Mr Steve Deschamp, applies under s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (“the Act”) for summary dismissal of the substantive application instituted against him.

2. The applicant, Mr Wills, filed an application with a supporting affidavit on 19 December 2006.  The facts and history of the case have been set out in my previous judgment, Wills v Morris [2008] FCA 784, which concerned an application by the tenth-named respondent, Australian Broadcasting Corporation (“ABC”), to summarily dismiss the proceedings. In that case I was satisfied that Mr Wills had been unable to articulate in any comprehensible manner, as a matter of fact and law, any cause of action on the materials before the Court: Wills at [13]. The ABC was successful in that application and the matter is presently on appeal.

3. At a directions hearing on 30 June 2008, Mr Wills advised the Court that he had served all the respondents and had filed affidavits to that effect.  He then asked the Court for, in effect, default judgment against all parties who had not entered an appearance.  I was not then prepared to accede to that oral application in light of my judgment in Wills.  I adjourned the matter to the 15 July 2008. 

4. On 15 July 2008, counsel for Mr Deschamp foreshadowed that an application for a summary judgment against the applicant would be made.  I then advised Mr Wills that I was not prepared to enter default judgment…