FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Lawson v Stateships [2012] FCA 491
Citation: | ||
Parties: | ||
File number: | WAD 24 of 2012 | |
Judge: | GILMOUR J | |
Date of judgment: | ||
Place: | Perth | |
Division: | GENERAL DIVISION | |
Category: | No catchwords | |
Number of paragraphs: | ||
Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr L Tsaknis | |
Solicitor for the Respondent: | Cocks Macnish | |
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA | |
| Applicant | |
AND: | Respondent |
DATE OF ORDER: | |
WHERE MADE: |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. That the notice of objection to competency be upheld.
2. The applicant’s oral application to amend the grounds of appeal in terms of draft grounds attached to a facsimile from him to the Court, dated 10 April 2012, be refused.
3. The appeal be dismissed.
4. The applicant pay the costs of the respondent of and incidental to the notice of objection to competency, and of the proceedings today, to be taxed if not agreed.
NOTE: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY | |
GENERAL DIVISION | WAD 24 of 2012 |
BETWEEN: | BARRY LAWSON Applicant
|
AND: | STATESHIP Respondent
|
JUDGE: | GILMOUR J |
DATE: | 8 MAY 2012 |
PLACE: | PERTH |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 The respondent filed a notice of objection to competency on 17 February 2012. I adjourned the hearing of this on 21 February 2012 to enable the applicant to attempt to obtain legal representation and to file a proposed amended ground of appeal. There has been quite a long background of indulgence to the applicant in his attempts to bring in tenable grounds of appeal in this matter.
2 The applicant has, despite very considerable efforts in attempting to obtain legal representation, failed in that objective. He nonetheless filed proposed amended grounds of appeal which I have considered, each in turn, against the reasons of the tribunal which is the subject of the present appeal. I have also had the benefit of oral submissions this morning, both from the applicant in person and from counsel on behalf of the respondent.
3 I am satisfied that the grounds of appeal are not capable of exposing any relevant error of law in respect to the reasons for judgment of the tribunal. The applicant accepts this to be so. It is appropriate that I make orders in terms of the respondent’s draft minute dated 4 May 2012.
4 So there will be orders:
1. That the notice of objection to competency be upheld.
2. The applicant’s oral application to amend the grounds of appeal in terms of draft grounds attached to a facsimile from him to the Court, dated 10 April 2012, be refused.
3. The appeal be dismissed.
4. The applicant pay the costs of the respondent of and incidental to the notice of objection to competency, and of the proceedings today, to be taxed if not agreed.
I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Gilmour. |
Associate:
