FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Sievwright v State of Victoria (No 3) [2014] FCA 75

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    Pursuant to rule 9.70 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the settlement of this proceeding set out in the Deed of Release dated 18 December 2013 marked as Exhibit EG-1 to the affidavit of Emeline Gaske affirmed on 31 January 2014 be approved.

2.    The proceeding be dismissed.

3.    There be no order as to costs.

4.    Exhibits EG-1 and EG-3 of the affidavit of Emeline Gaske filed on 31 January 2014 be treated as confidential and be retained in their respective envelopes, those envelopes not to be opened without the permission of a Judge of this Court.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1    Before the court is an application pursuant to r 9.70 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) for the approval of a settlement of this proceeding, expressed in a deed of release signed on behalf of the parties on 18 December 2013.

2    For the purposes of considering that application, I have read the reasons for judgment of Marshall J given in final disposition of claims made in an earlier proceeding between the same parties on 21 February 2012: Sievwright v State of Victoria [2012] FCA 118.

3    I have recently made an interlocutory order for the striking out of substantial aspects of the applicant’s Statement of Claim in this proceeding, and I take into account the matters to which I adverted in my reasons given on that occasion: Sievwright v State of Victoria [2013] FCA 964. That interlocutory process gave me the benefit of understanding the dimensions, the nature and the strength of the applicant’s case in many respects.

4    I have read the affidavits filed in support of the present application, namely, the affidavit of Anne Witcombe sworn on 29 January 2014 and the affidavit of Emeline Gaske affirmed 31 January 2014. I have, of course, read and considered the deed of release which embodies the settlement, and I have also had the benefit of reading a memorandum of advice by Melinda Richards SC furnished on 22 January 2014, conformably with r 9.71(2)(c).

5    Taking into account all of those matters, I accept what has been submitted today on behalf of both parties in the case, namely, that the settlement reached on 18 December 2013 is in the best interests of the applicant and should be given the approval of the court.

Associate:

Dated:    19 February 2014