FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Brock v Minister for Home Affairs [2011] FCA 1171
Citation: |
Brock v Minister for Home Affairs [2011] FCA 1171 |
||
Appeal from: |
Brock v Minister for Home Affairs [2010] FCA 1301 |
||
Parties: |
|||
File number: |
NSD 1708 of 2010 |
||
Judge: |
DOWNES J |
||
Date of judgment: |
|||
Legislation: |
|||
Date of last submissions: |
11 October 2011 |
||
Place: |
Sydney |
||
Division: |
GENERAL DIVISION |
||
Category: |
No Catchwords |
||
Number of paragraphs: |
5 |
||
Solicitor for the Respondent: |
Blake Dawson |
||
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
Appellant |
|
AND: |
Respondent |
DATE OF ORDER: |
|
WHERE MADE: |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. Leave granted to the appellant to file an amended notice of appeal in accordance with the draft dated 9 October 2011.
2. Application to have the appeal determined on written submissions alone refused.
3. No order as to costs.
4. Liberty to apply.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY |
|
GENERAL DIVISION |
NSD 1708 of 2010 |
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
BETWEEN: |
GEORGE PAUL BROCK Appellant
|
AND: |
MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS Respondent
|
JUDGE: |
DOWNES J |
DATE: |
14 OCTOBER 2011 |
PLACE: |
SYDNEY |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 The appellant George Paul Brock has made application for leave to file an amended notice of appeal and for an order that the appeal be determined on written submissions only without any hearing. The respondent Minister consents to the appellant being granted leave to amend the notice of appeal and submits that the application for a hearing on the papers should be deferred until the written submissions are complete.
2 Leave is granted to the appellant to file an amended notice of appeal in accordance with the draft dated 9 October 2011.
3 Rule 36.41 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 identifies “applications which may be dealt with without an oral hearing”. They do not include the hearing of an appeal. Rule 1.35 permits orders inconsistent with the Rules, but such an order would require a special occasion. A hearing presents a valuable opportunity for the Court to ask questions about written submissions even if the parties do not desire to add anything. In all the circumstances, the court does not propose to defer ruling on the application and proposes to refuse it.
4 This ruling does not prevent the appellant from confining his submissions to the content of his written submissions. The appellant should determine whether he does not wish to appear at all at the hearing and, if he does, whether he wishes to appear in person, or, if possible by video link. The appellant should, whatever the case may be, see that the Registry of the Court is informed of his wishes either directly or through the Metropolitan Remand and Reception Centre at Silverwater at the earliest opportunity.
5 In the circumstances the Court does not propose to make any order for costs.
I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Downes. |
Associate:
