FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

 

Baird v State of Queensland [2003] FCA 1582


JAMES STANLEY BAIRD, MARIE CREEK, FRANK TAYLEY, HENRY WALKER, HENRY DEERAL, EDGAR IVAN GIBSON, ANITA KAREN GORDON AND ELLA WOIBO v STATE OF QUEENSLAND AND LUTHERAN CHURCH OF AUSTRALIA INC.

 

Q 91 OF 2003

 

 

 

 

DOWSETT J

5 DECEMBER 2003

BRISBANE


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

 

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

Q 91 OF 2003

 

BETWEEN:

JAMES STANLEY BAIRD

FIRST APPLICANT

 

MARIE CREEK

SECOND APPLICANT

 

FRANK TAYLEY

THIRD APPLICANT

 

HENRY WALKER

FOURTH APPLICANT

 

HENRY DEERAL

FIFTH APPLICANT

 

EDGAR IVAN GIBSON

SIXTH APPLICANT

 

ANITA KAREN GORDON

SEVENTH APPLICANT

 

ELLA WOIBO

EIGHTH APPLICANT

 

AND:

STATE OF QUEENSLAND

FIRST RESPONDENT

 

LUTHERAN CHURCH OF AUSTRALIA INC.

SECOND RESPONDENT

 

JUDGE:

DOWSETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

5 DECEMBER 2003

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

 

 

 

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

 

1.         The applicants pay the costs of the first and second respondents thrown away by the adjournment, which costs include the appearances in Cairns on 1 December 2003.


2.         The applicants pay the costs of the first and second respondents of and incidental to their appearances today.


Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

 

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

Q 91 OF 2003

 

BETWEEN:

JAMES STANLEY BAIRD

FIRST APPLICANT

 

MARIE CREEK

SECOND APPLICANT

 

FRANK TAYLEY

THIRD APPLICANT

 

HENRY WALKER

FOURTH APPLICANT

 

HENRY DEERAL

FIFTH APPLICANT

 

EDGAR IVAN GIBSON

SIXTH APPLICANT

 

ANITA KAREN GORDON

SEVENTH APPLICANT

 

ELLA WOIBO

EIGHTH APPLICANT

 

AND:

STATE OF QUEENSLAND

FIRST RESPONDENT

 

LUTHERAN CHURCH OF AUSTRALIA INC.

SECOND RESPONDENT

 

 

JUDGE:

DOWSETT J

DATE:

5 DECEMBER 2003

PLACE:

BRISBANE


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1                     This matter was set down for trial in Cairns this week.  In the course of last week the applicants indicated that they wished to amend the statement of claim.  As the matter was raised at such a late stage it was not reasonably practicable to list it for hearing before Monday of this week.  As it was clear that the amendment or an amendment to similar effect should be allowed, and as the first respondent indicated that it would not be able to proceed in the face of such amendment, the trial was adjourned.  The question remaining is how to deal with costs thrown away by the adjournment. 

2                     The effect of the proposed amendment is to add an alternative basis for the claim against the first respondent.  The statement of claim originally depended upon an assertion that the first respondent was the employer of the various applicants.  The amendment raises an alternative basis for liability dependent upon the allegation that the first respondent provided funds to the second respondent, earmarked for payment of wages to the various applicants.  That this was possibly the case was known to the applicants by August of this year when the second respondent so alleged.  If this alternative basis was to be raised in the proceedings, it ought to have been at some stage before last week.  In those circumstances I am of the view that the adjournment of the trial was substantially as a result of the default of the applicants and that they ought pay the costs thrown away by the adjournment, which costs include the appearances in Cairns on 1 December 2003.  The applicants should also pay the costs of the first and second respondents of and incidental to their appearances today.


I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dowsett.


Associate:



Dated:              5 January 2004




Counsel for the Applicants:

Mr D O’Gorman



Solicitor for the First, Second, Third and Fourth Applicants:

Robert Bax & Associates



Solicitor for the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Applicants:

V J Butler & Associates



Counsel for the First Respondent:

Mr J Murdoch SC

Mr C Murdoch



Solicitor for the First Respondent:

Crown Law



Counsel for the Second Respondent:

Mr A Duffy



Solicitor for the Second Respondent:

Bain Gasteen



Date of Hearing:

5 December 2003



Date of Judgment:

5 December 2003