FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Luck v Hunter [2000] FCA 1216
GAYE LUCK v DR ROSS B HUNTER & ORS
V 392 of 2000
V 393 of 2000
V 394 of 2000
V 541 of 2000
BURCHETT, R D NICHOLSON AND FINKELSTEIN JJ
23 AUGUST 2000
MELBOURNE
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
V 393 of 2000 V 394 of 2000 |
ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
|
BETWEEN: |
GAYE LUCK Applicant
|
|
AND: |
DR ROSS B HUNTER & ORS Respondents
|
|
DATE OF ORDER: |
|
|
WHERE MADE: |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.
2. The Applicant pay the costs of the 1st, 2nd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th Respondents in matter no. V 392 of 2000, not to be taxed before the completion of the principal proceedings.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY |
V 393 of 2000 |
ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
|
BETWEEN: |
GAYE LUCK Applicant
|
|
AND: |
ROSLYN BROWNE First Respondent
HONEYCOMBES TOWNSVILLE PTY LTD Second Respondent
SIMON HORNE Third Respondent
DEBBIE GILCHRIST Fourth Respondent
COLIN BROWNE Fifth Respondent
|
|
JUDGES: |
BURCHETT, R D NICHOLSON AND FINKELSTEIN JJ |
|
DATE: |
23 AUGUST 2000 |
|
PLACE: |
MELBOURNE |
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY |
V 394 of 2000 |
ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
|
BETWEEN: |
GAYE LUCK Applicant
|
|
AND: |
CSR LIMITED (BRADFORD INSULATION GROUP), CSR EXCELLENT DESIGN PTY LTD, BRADFORD INSULATION INDUSTRIES PTY LIMITED, B I (CONTRACTING) PTY LIMITED, BRADFORD INSULATION (SA) PTY LIMITED, CRS (GEOMATICS) PTY LTD, INSULCO PTY LTD/TASMAN INSULATION AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED, ACI PTY LTD, ACI WORLDWIDE (PACIFIC) PTY LTD, ACI PINK SUPERBATTS, PETER JAMES HAYES, WATTLEFIELD PTY LTD, PYNEBOARD PTY LTD, AUSTRALIAN GYPSUM LTD, AUSTRALIAN GYPSUM INDUSTRIES LTD, PLASTERGLASS PTY LTD, STANDARD PLASTERGLASS PTY LTD, PILKINGTON (AUSTRALIA) PRPERTIES LIMITED, PILKINGTON ACILIMITED, PILKINGTON ACI OPERATIONS PTY LTD, PILKINGTON AUSTRALASIA LIMITED, PILKINGTON (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED, OWENS CORNING AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED, ACI FIBREGLASS/ACI INSULATION, ACI FIBREGLASS LIMITED/ACI INSULATION, INSULATION SOLUTIONS PTY LTD, ACI GLASS INSULATORS PROPRIETARY LIMITED, ACI SISALATION PTY LTD/SISALATION PTY LTD, ACI OPERATIONS PTY LTD, INSULFLUF AUSTRALIA PTY LTD, AMATEK LIMITED, ROCLA LIMITED, MR K G WIENEKE, MRS J WIENEKE, CEILFIX PTY LTD, CEILFIX PTY LIMITED, CEILFIX BUILDING SERVICES PTY LTD, COLIN CAMERON Respondents
|
|
JUDGES: |
BURCHETT, R D NICHOLSON AND FINKELSTEIN JJ |
|
DATE: |
23 AUGUST 2000 |
|
PLACE: |
MELBOURNE |
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY |
V 541 of 2000 |
ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
|
BETWEEN: |
GAYE LUCK Applicant
|
|
AND: |
TOWNSVILLE CITY COUNCIL First Respondent
WOLF SETZINGER Second Respondent
MICHAEL COLLARD Third Respondent
GRANT STEEN Fourth Respondent
STATE OF QUEENSLAND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Fifth Respondent
STATE OF QUEENSLAND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT Sixth Respondent
CHRIS McNAMARA Seventh Respondent
|
|
JUDGES: |
BURCHETT, R D NICHOLSON AND FINKELSTEIN JJ |
|
DATE: |
23 AUGUST 2000 |
|
PLACE: |
MELBOURNE |
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
|
BETWEEN: |
Applicant
|
|
AND: |
First Respondent
R B HUNTER (MEDICAL PTY LTD Second Respondent
NOCDOC Third Respondent
DR D McALPINE Fourth Respondent
P W KERRISK (TOWNSVILLE) PTY LTD T/A AITKENVALE MEDICAL CENTRE Fifth Respondent
DR PETER BUCHANAN Sixth Respondent
DR HENRY LAU Seventh Respondent
CONSULTANT PATHOLOGISTS (TOWNSVILLE PTY LTD Eighth Respondent
DR GRANT WITHEY Ninth Respondent
QUEENSLAND X-RAY SERVICES Tenth Respondent
|
|
JUDGES: |
|
|
DATE: |
|
|
PLACE: |
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BURCHETT J
1 What I am about to say represents the reasons for judgment of the Court. There is no ground of legal principle to justify a grant of leave in these cases to appeal against the interlocutory orders that were made. There was no error of principle by the trial judge and no proven miscarriage of justice. The orders transferring the various proceedings say nothing about how or where interlocutory proceedings should be dealt with. It is evident that there is a potential for significant interlocutory applications in these matters. The order does not preclude a judge ordering that a particular interlocutory hearing take place in Melbourne, or elsewhere, before that judge, or before some other judge.
2 There may be circumstances in which it could be unfair to require the Applicant to conduct an interlocutory hearing by video-link. We are quite sure the judge who decides that will take the Applicant's particular difficulties into account, and the refusal of leave today must not be taken as preventing the judge taking any particular course. As the matter was raised during argument, we should point out that the Rules of Court permit a party to file documents at a registry other than the registry to which the matter is assigned.
3 The formal order of the Court is that the application for leave to appeal be dismissed. The Applicant must pay the costs of those Respondents who appeared and have sought their costs, but there is to be no taxation until the completion of the principal proceedings.
|
I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Court. |
|
|
Associate:
Dated: 30 August 2000
|
The Applicant appeared in person |
|
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the 1st, 2nd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th Respondents (V 392 of 2000): |
Mr P J Riordan |
|
|
|
|
Solicitors for the 1st, 2nd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th Respondents (V 392 of 2000): |
Tress Cocks and Maddox |
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents (V 541 of 2000): |
Mr P Mayberry |
|
|
|
|
Solicitors for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents (V 541 of 2000): |
Mahonys |
|
|
|
|
Date of Hearing: |
23 August 2000 |
|
|
|
|
Date of Judgment: |
23 August 2000 |
