Doyle v Secure Parking Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 1803

JUDGMENT No. 2203.1 L228

GENERAL DISTRIBUTION

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NI 2162 of 1996

BETWEEN: JAMIE GERARD DOYLE

APPLICANT AND: SECURE PARKING PTY LTD RESPONDENT JUDGE(S): EINFELD J 0 P DATE: 7 MAY 1998 ' PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This matter is an application by way of a notice of motion for a rehearing of the applicant's claim for wrongful dismissal which was dismissed by Judicial Registrar Locke on 10 September 1997, When the motion was presented to the Court and filed on 17 November 1997, it was then several weeks out of time and, accordingly, it sought an extension of time for its filing. A motion is perhaps a surprising way to institute an appeal by way of a rehearing. It does not appear to be dealt with in the Court's rules, although it was presumably dealt with in the rules of the former Industrial Relations Court of Australia. However, no point was taken on this matter and I am prepared to treat the motion as the

appropriate form of application for the rehearing of the alleged wrongful termination.

When the matter first came before the Court on 19 December 1997, the extension of time was opposed by the respondent. As an extension of time may in part be determined by the merits of the substantive argument, I determined that the whole case should be fixed for hearing on 25 March 1998. I gave a number of directions requiring both sides to file affidavits and written submissions in relation to the extension of time, and outlines of the argument on the

substantive application, by certain fixed times. In substance, none of those directions have

been complied with by the applicant even up to the present day.

-2-

The hearing on 25 March was vacated when the Court was informed that the case was to be withdrawn. However, neither a notice of discontinuance nor consent orders for withdrawal were filed and the matter came back into the list on 2 April when the respondent indicated that it wished to move for summary dismissal of the case. Directions were given that a motion seeking summary dismissal be filed and served, together with affidavits in support, and an order made that the motion be returnable for 1 May. Other directions were given in