FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Dahler v ACT Government t/as Community Services Directorate [2014] FCA 210
| IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA | |
| Applicant | |
| AND: | ACT GOVERNMENT T/AS COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTORATE Respondent |
| DATE OF ORDER: | |
| WHERE MADE: |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The Application for an Extension of time and Leave to Appeal filed on 3 March 2014 be dismissed upon terms that both parties in this Court and the Minister for Community Services (A.C.T.) consent to an order being made in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia adding the Minister as a second respondent in proceeding No CAG46 of 2013 instituted by the applicant in that Court.
2. The costs of and incidental to the said application in this Court be costs in application No CAG46 of 2013 in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
| AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY | |
| GENERAL DIVISION | ACD 14 of 2014 |
| BETWEEN: | CLINTON DAHLER Applicant |
| AND: | ACT GOVERNMENT T/AS COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTORATE Respondent |
| JUDGE: | FOSTER J |
| DATE: | 6 MARCH 2014 |
| PLACE: | CANBERRA |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 On 3 March 2014, the applicant filed in this Court an Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal. At my direction, the matter was listed before me today. In the Application, the applicant specified the following matters as the subject matter of the Application:
The Applicant applies for leave to appeal from the failure of Judge Neville of the Federal Circuit Court to give judgment in chambers on 17 December 2013.
Leave to appeal is required by section 24(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act, 1976.
2 The applicant then goes on to list the grounds relied upon by him as the basis for his Application. I need not refer to those grounds.
3 The application was supported by an affidavit sworn by the applicant. At the heart of the applicant’s complaint is a dispute as to the correct specification of the respondent in the proceedings below: That is to say, whether the true respondent is “Australian Capital Territory” or “Minister for Community Services of the Australian Capital Territory”. The applicant contends the latter and the respondent the former. The Circuit Judge declined to make an order joining the Minister to and removing the Territory from the proceeding below.
4 In this day and age, it is regrettable, to say the least, that a problem concerning the correct naming of a party to litigation has produced not only delay in the Court below but an application in this Court which is utterly misconceived.
5 I have not sought, nor have I been given, submissions as to which of the two candidates for the status of respondent in the Court below is the correct respondent in that Court. In my view, it does not matter. I think that the practical solution is that both candidates for that position ought to be named as respondents in the proceeding below so that the true dispute can move forward, both for the purpose of mediation, and, if that should fail, for the purpose of being determined according to law.
6 I propose to dismiss the present application, but to do so on terms that both of the candidates to which I have referred be named as respondents in the Court below.
7 Ms Banks, who appears for the Territory and for the Minister before me, consents to that course.
8 Accordingly, I will dismiss the application on those terms. Costs should abide the outcome in the Circuit Court.
| I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Foster. |
Associate:
