JUDGMENT No. LA LEE 7-26, NO QUESTION OF PRINCIPLE IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY QG 144 of 1995 BETWEEN: RUSSELL GORDON HAIG MATHEWS APPLICANT AND: TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED RESPONDENT JUDGE: DRUMMOND J DATE OF ORDER: 24/05/96 WHERE MADE: BRISBANE THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. Proceedings. number QG 144 of 1995 be transferred to the District Court of Queensland at Brisbane. 2. In proceedings number QG 144 of 1995, paragraph 1 of the amended application be struck out. 3. The costs of today will be costs in the proceedings. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. NO QUESTION OF PRINCIPLE IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY QG 144 of 1995 BETWEEN: RUSSELL GORDON HAIG MATHEWS APPLICANT AND: TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED RESPONDENT JUDGE: DRUMMOND J DATE: 24/05/96 PLACE: BRISBANE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT I have before me an application by Mr Mathews against Telstra seeking injunctive relief and damages under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) on a number of bases. Directions were given on 9 February to enable Mr Mathews to refine his case and put it in the form in which he wished to run it. He responded to that and it is apparent from the material filed that the conduct alleged against Telstra Corporation Limited in respect of which Mr Mathews sought injunctive relief has ceased, and he himself has confirmed today that he does not seek injunctive relief for that reason. The only other remedy he is seeking is in damages, as I say, on a number of bases. One of the bases upon which he seeks damages is in respect of conduct alleged to have been engaged in by Telstra in breach of s 51LAA. Notwithstanding the opportunity that Mr Mathews has had to refine his case and put it in the form in which he was satisfied to run it, he has completely failed to expose any foundation for as 51AA claim. He indicated that he wishes an opportunity to amend, but it does not seem to me to be appropriate to grant that application given the history of the matter and, in particular, the ample opportunity Mr Mathews has had to, as I have repeatedly said, refine his case and put it in a form that he was satisfied to stand upon. However, while it appears to me that the Magistrates Court is plainly the appropriate and -2- most economical forum in which what is, in truth, a claim for a very modest amount of damages should be heard, it would be inappropriate, in the absence of an application by Telstra to strike out the references in the proceedings to a case based on s 51 AA, to transfer the matter to the Magistrates Court. However, it is clear from s 68 the District Court Act 1967 (Qld) that the District Court of Queensland has full jurisdiction to deal with such matters, even if it were to be thought appropriate to give Mr Mathews an opportunity to make yet another amendment to his proceedings. Since I am not in a position where I feel that I can strike out the allegations in the proceedings based upon s 51AA, I will order that the proceeding be transferred to the District Court of Queensland, recognising that that may be but another step in this matter ultimately finding its way into the forum in which, in my view, it is appropriate for it to be resolved in. The order of the Court therefore will be that proceedings number QG 144 of 1995 be transferred to the District Court of Queensland at Brisbane. I certify that this and the preceding one (1) page is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Drummond. Associate: LbMEL Dated: 24/05/96 The Applicant appeared in person. Solicitor for the Respondent: Mallesons Stephen Jaques Date of Hearing: 24 May 1996 Date of Judgment: 24 May 1996