JUDGMENT No. snd Seal cctctin IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. NG 374 of 1994 ) GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Applicant AND: MARK JOHN BRANDON Respondent IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY No. NG 375 of 1994 GENERAL DIVISION ed BETWEEN: THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Applicant AND: MICHAEL JOHN ROCK Respondent JUDGE MAKING ORDERS: FOSTER J DATE: 1 NOVEMBER 1994 PLACE: SYDNEY RECEIVED 1- NOV 1994 FEDERAL COURT ©: MINUTE OF ORDERS patter PRINCIPAL REGISTAY THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. the Commonwealth's Notices of Motion be dismissed in each case. 2. in each case the Commonwealth pay the applicant's costs of the Notice of Motion. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. NG 374 of 1994 ) GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Applicant AND: MARK JOHN BRANDON Respondent IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY No. NG 375 of 1994 ee ee ee ee ee GENERAL DIVISION BETWEEN: THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Applicant AND: MICHAEL JOHN ROCK Respondent CORAM: FOSTER J DATE: 1 NOVEMBER 1994 PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT HIS HONOUR: In both these cases the respondent has pleaded defences similar to those pleaded in the matter of Mewett. In these cases, however, it is not suggested that any relevant limitation period had expired before the coming into effect of 2. 8 44 of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth). It would appear, however, that any relevant limitation period has since expired and that accordingly the actions can proceed only if an extension of time is granted. In my view, for reasons substantially similar to those I have given in Mewett, it cannot be said that either the actions themselves or the applications for extension of time are so untenable as to warrant their being struck out. Accordingly, I make the following orders: 1. That the Commonwealth's Notices of Motion be dismissed in each case. 2. That in each case the Commonwealth pay the applicant's costs of the Notice of Motion. I certify that this and the preceding one (1) page are a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein of the Honourable Mr Justice M. L. Foster. Associate: A onoce Date: 1 NOVEMBER 1994