Federal Court of Australia
Ross v Australian Information Commissioner [2022] FCA 243
File number(s): | VID 14 of 2020 |
Judgment of: | ANDERSON J |
Date of judgment: | |
Catchwords: | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – failure to comply with Court orders and attend the hearing of his application – default judgment granted pursuant to r 5.23 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) |
Legislation: | |
Division: | General Division |
Registry: | Victoria |
National Practice Area: | Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights |
Number of paragraphs: | 7 |
Counsel for the Applicant: | The applicant did not appear |
Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr T Creedon |
Solicitors for the Respondent: | Australian Government Solicitor |
ORDERS
Applicant | ||
AND: | AUSTRALIAN INFORMATION COMMISSIONER Respondent | |
DATE OF ORDER: |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application as agreed or to be taxed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
ANDERSON J:
1 This was an application for judicial review of the decision of the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) not to investigate complaints made by the applicant about the Australian Federal Police (AFP), Department of Defence, and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), under s 36 of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth).
2 On 16 December 2021, at a case management hearing, the Respondent’s solicitor, Mr Creedon indicated to me that the applicant wished to have this matter dismissed. Mr Creedon indicated that he provided proposed consent orders to the applicant, to give effect to his request to dismiss this case. Mr Creedon indicated that he did not receive a response from the applicant following the provision of the proposed consent orders giving effect to the applicant’s wish to dismiss the application.
3 I adjourned the case management conference to 9:30 AM on 17 March 2022 and asked Mr Creedon to continue discussions with the applicant, and to provide a proposed minute of consent order so that I could give effect to the parties’ intentions to dismiss the application.
4 On 17 March 2022, the applicant did not appear for a second time.
5 Mr Creedon indicated to me that he forwarded a proposed minute of consent order to the applicant to dismiss the application and received no response from him in relation to this.
6 Today, the respondent moved that the application be dismissed in light of the applicant’s non-appearance.
7 In those circumstances, pursuant to r 5.23 of the Federal Court Rules 2011(Cth), I will dismiss the application.
I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Anderson. |
Associate:
