FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Luck v Hunter [2000] FCA 1216 GAYE LUCK v DR ROSS B HUNTER & ORS V 392 of 2000 V 393 of 2000 V 394 of 2000 V 541 of 2000 BURCHETT, R D NICHOLSON AND FINKELSTEIN JJ 23 AUGUST 2000 MELBOURNE IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 392 of 2000 V 393 of 2000 V 394 of 2000 V 541 of 2000 ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: GAYE LUCK Applicant AND: DR ROSS B HUNTER & ORS Respondents JUDGES: BURCHETT, R D NICHOLSON AND FINKELSTEIN JJ DATE OF ORDER: 23 AUGUST 2000 WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application for leave to appeal be dismissed. 2. The Applicant pay the costs of the 1st, 2nd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th Respondents in matter no. V 392 of 2000, not to be taxed before the completion of the principal proceedings. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 393 of 2000 ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: GAYE LUCK Applicant AND: ROSLYN BROWNE First Respondent HONEYCOMBES TOWNSVILLE PTY LTD Second Respondent SIMON HORNE Third Respondent DEBBIE GILCHRIST Fourth Respondent COLIN BROWNE Fifth Respondent JUDGES: BURCHETT, R D NICHOLSON AND FINKELSTEIN JJ DATE: 23 AUGUST 2000 PLACE: MELBOURNE IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 394 of 2000 ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: GAYE LUCK Applicant AND: CSR LIMITED (BRADFORD INSULATION GROUP), CSR EXCELLENT DESIGN PTY LTD, BRADFORD INSULATION INDUSTRIES PTY LIMITED, B I (CONTRACTING) PTY LIMITED, BRADFORD INSULATION (SA) PTY LIMITED, CRS (GEOMATICS) PTY LTD, INSULCO PTY LTD/TASMAN INSULATION AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED, ACI PTY LTD, ACI WORLDWIDE (PACIFIC) PTY LTD, ACI PINK SUPERBATTS, PETER JAMES HAYES, WATTLEFIELD PTY LTD, PYNEBOARD PTY LTD, AUSTRALIAN GYPSUM LTD, AUSTRALIAN GYPSUM INDUSTRIES LTD, PLASTERGLASS PTY LTD, STANDARD PLASTERGLASS PTY LTD, PILKINGTON (AUSTRALIA) PRPERTIES LIMITED, PILKINGTON ACILIMITED, PILKINGTON ACI OPERATIONS PTY LTD, PILKINGTON AUSTRALASIA LIMITED, PILKINGTON (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED, OWENS CORNING AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED, ACI FIBREGLASS/ACI INSULATION, ACI FIBREGLASS LIMITED/ACI INSULATION, INSULATION SOLUTIONS PTY LTD, ACI GLASS INSULATORS PROPRIETARY LIMITED, ACI SISALATION PTY LTD/SISALATION PTY LTD, ACI OPERATIONS PTY LTD, INSULFLUF AUSTRALIA PTY LTD, AMATEK LIMITED, ROCLA LIMITED, MR K G WIENEKE, MRS J WIENEKE, CEILFIX PTY LTD, CEILFIX PTY LIMITED, CEILFIX BUILDING SERVICES PTY LTD, COLIN CAMERON Respondents JUDGES: BURCHETT, R D NICHOLSON AND FINKELSTEIN JJ DATE: 23 AUGUST 2000 PLACE: MELBOURNE IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 541 of 2000 ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: GAYE LUCK Applicant AND: TOWNSVILLE CITY COUNCIL First Respondent WOLF SETZINGER Second Respondent MICHAEL COLLARD Third Respondent GRANT STEEN Fourth Respondent STATE OF QUEENSLAND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Fifth Respondent STATE OF QUEENSLAND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT Sixth Respondent CHRIS McNAMARA Seventh Respondent JUDGES: BURCHETT, R D NICHOLSON AND FINKELSTEIN JJ DATE: 23 AUGUST 2000 PLACE: MELBOURNE IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 392 of 2000 ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: GAYE LUCK Applicant AND: DR ROSS B HUNTER First Respondent R B HUNTER (MEDICAL PTY LTD Second Respondent NOCDOC Third Respondent DR D McALPINE Fourth Respondent P W KERRISK (TOWNSVILLE) PTY LTD T/A AITKENVALE MEDICAL CENTRE Fifth Respondent DR PETER BUCHANAN Sixth Respondent DR HENRY LAU Seventh Respondent CONSULTANT PATHOLOGISTS (TOWNSVILLE PTY LTD Eighth Respondent DR GRANT WITHEY Ninth Respondent QUEENSLAND X-RAY SERVICES Tenth Respondent JUDGES: BURCHETT, R D NICHOLSON AND FINKELSTEIN JJ DATE: 23 AUGUST 2000 PLACE: MELBOURNE EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BURCHETT J 1 What I am about to say represents the reasons for judgment of the Court. There is no ground of legal principle to justify a grant of leave in these cases to appeal against the interlocutory orders that were made. There was no error of principle by the trial judge and no proven miscarriage of justice. The orders transferring the various proceedings say nothing about how or where interlocutory proceedings should be dealt with. It is evident that there is a potential for significant interlocutory applications in these matters. The order does not preclude a judge ordering that a particular interlocutory hearing take place in Melbourne, or elsewhere, before that judge, or before some other judge. 2 There may be circumstances in which it could be unfair to require the Applicant to conduct an interlocutory hearing by video-link. We are quite sure the judge who decides that will take the Applicant's particular difficulties into account, and the refusal of leave today must not be taken as preventing the judge taking any particular course. As the matter was raised during argument, we should point out that the Rules of Court permit a party to file documents at a registry other than the registry to which the matter is assigned. 3 The formal order of the Court is that the application for leave to appeal be dismissed. The Applicant must pay the costs of those Respondents who appeared and have sought their costs, but there is to be no taxation until the completion of the principal proceedings. I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Court. Associate: Dated: 30 August 2000 The Applicant appeared in person Counsel for the 1st, 2nd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th Respondents (V 392 of 2000): Mr P J Riordan Solicitors for the 1st, 2nd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th Respondents (V 392 of 2000): Tress Cocks and Maddox Counsel for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents (V 541 of 2000): Mr P Mayberry Solicitors for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents (V 541 of 2000): Mahonys Date of Hearing: 23 August 2000 Date of Judgment: 23 August 2000