Duong v Australian Postal Corporation [2001] FCA 1888

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CUC DUONG v THE AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

N 887 OF 2001

LINDGREN J

19 DECEMBER 2001

SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 887 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	CUC DUONG APPLICANT
AND:	THE AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	LINDGREN J
DATE OF ORDER:	19 DECEMBER 2001
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Pursuant to O 10 r 7 of the Federal Court Rules, the application be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the proceeding.

3. Orders 1 and 2 not be entered prior to 31 January 2002.

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	N 887 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

CUC DUONG

APPLICANT

AND:

THE AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	LINDGREN J
DATE:	19 DECEMBER 2001
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1 When the case was last before the Court on 3 December 2001 I directed that the applicant, Cuc Duong (“Ms Duong”), file and serve affidavits by 14 December 2001 and indicated my intention to dismiss the application today if the affidavits were not filed.

2 The matter has a history. On 13 July 2001 I directed that Ms Duong file and serve a statement of claim and any further affidavits on which she intended to rely by 31 July 2001. Ms Duong filed a statement of claim on 22 August 2001 but did not file any further affidavits by that date.

3 When the matter was next before the Court on 29 August 2001 by consent I made further directions, including a direction extending the time for the filing and service of the affidavits to 5 October 2001. Again, Ms Duong did not file the further affidavits.

4 The matter was next before the Court on 3 December 2001. After indicating to the representative of Ms Duong that this would be the last extension of time, I extended time for the filing of the affidavits yet again to 14 December. Yet again there has been default.

5 There has been discussion this morning of the fact that an affidavit exists in draft form but this is simply not good enough.

6 The Court orders, first, that pursuant to O 10 r 7 of the Federal Court Rules, the application be dismissed; secondly, that Ms Duong pay the respondent’s costs of the proceeding; and, thirdly, that orders 1 and 2 not be entered prior to 31 January 2002.

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

Associate:

Dated: 2 January 2002

Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr C D Jackson

Solicitors for the Applicant:	Pham Atic Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr G T Johnson

Solicitors for the Respondent:	Brian Muir and Co

Date of Hearing:	19 December 2001

Date of Judgment:	19 December 2001

Top