Price v Commonwealth of Australia [2014] FCA 323
|
Citation: |
Price v Commonwealth of Australia [2014] FCA 323 | |
|
Parties: |
||
|
File number: |
VID 1067 of 2013 | |
|
Judge: |
BROMBERG J | |
|
Date of judgment: |
||
|
Legislation: |
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 1.32, 5.22(b), (c) and (d) | |
|
Place: |
Melbourne | |
|
Division: |
GENERAL DIVISION | |
|
Category: |
No Catchwords | |
|
Number of paragraphs: |
||
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
First Applicant GREGORY SHAH Second Applicant | |
|
AND: |
Respondent |
|
DATE OF ORDER: |
|
|
WHERE MADE: |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The proceeding be dismissed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
|
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY |
|
|
GENERAL DIVISION |
VID 1067 of 2013 |
|
BETWEEN: |
GARRY PRICE First Applicant GREGORY SHAH Second Applicant |
|
AND: |
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Respondent |
|
JUDGE: |
BROMBERG J |
|
DATE: |
17 MARCH 2014 |
|
PLACE: |
MELBOURNE |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 By an Originating Application of 3 October 2013, the applicant instituted proceedings in the Court claiming damages, interest and costs against the respondent who was named as the Department of Industry (formerly the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research).
2 The matter came before me at a directions hearing on 3 December 2013. On that occasion there was no appearance for the named respondent, although a representative of the Commonwealth of Australia did attend to indicate that if the intended respondent was the Commonwealth of Australia an order amending the title of the proceeding should be made. An order was made on that day amending the title of the proceeding to show the respondent as the Commonwealth of Australia.
3 Also on 3 December 2013, an order was made that the Statement of Claim dated 2 October 2013 be struck out. The order was made on that occasion on the basis that the Statement of Claim was largely unintelligible and did not properly identify any reasonable cause of action which the applicants were pursuing. A further order was made that the applicants file and serve an amended statement of claim on or before 14 February 2014.
4 At all times, as far as the Court is aware, the applicants have been represented by solicitors, namely Anthony Chimonis of Business Support Services of Burwood Road, Hawthorn East.
5 The order made on 3 December 2013 that the applicants file and serve an Amended Statement of Claim has not been complied with.
6 On 7 March 2014, my Chambers communicated with Mr Chimonis of the applicants’ solicitors and advised that as no amended statement of claim had been filed, the matter would be listed for a directions hearing today for the purpose of the Court determining whether the proceeding should be struck out for want of prosecution.
7 When the matter was called on today, there was no appearance for the applicants.
8 It seems to me that, in those circumstances, pursuant to r 1.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), and bearing in mind the applicant’s default under the terms of r 5.22(b), (c) and (d), it is appropriate that the proceeding be struck out for want of prosecution. I will make an order to that effect.
|
I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Bromberg. |
Associate:
