Kirkup v General Manager Australia Post [2001] FCA 1298

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Kirkup v General Manager Australia Post [2001] FCA 1298

ROBERT KIRKUP v GENERAL MANAGER AUSTRALIA POST N 1085 of 2001 KATZ J SYDNEY 11 SEPTEMBER 2001

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 1085 of 2001

BETWEEN: ROBERT KIRKUP

APPLICANT

AND: GENERAL MANAGER AUSTRALIA POST

RESPONDENT JUDGE: KATZ J

DATE OF ORDER: 11 SEPTEMBER 2001

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: The application be dismissed. 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 N 1085 of 2001

BETWEEN: ROBERT KIRKUP

APPLICANT

AND: GENERAL MANAGER AUSTRALIA POST

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: KATZ J

DATE: 11 SEPTEMBER 2001

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 There is pending in the Court a proceeding commenced by Mr Robert Kirkup. In his application commencing the proceeding, Mr Kirkup named as the respondent the "General Manager Australia Post". 2 The proceeding is materially identical in its character to another proceeding earlier commenced by Mr Kirkup against the Commonwealth of Australia. Apart from the difference in the respondent, other differences between the two proceedings are that, in his application commencing the present proceeding, Mr Kirkup has claimed "compensation in the sum of $100 million" and, that, in his supporting affidavit, Mr Kirkup has deposed as follows: "I am the person posting three letters, not delivered - entitled to compensation. Because the general manager Australia Post refuses to sign a document of non-delivery I am suffering panic attacks & stress. - Taking tablets for both." 3 On 4 September 2001, on the Commonwealth's motion, I summarily dismissed, with costs, Mr Kirkup's earlier proceeding: see Kirkup v Commonwealth of Australia [2001] FCA 1243 (unreported). 4 On that day, I also had before me a motion by the respondent to the present proceeding for the present proceeding's summary dismissal, which motion was supported by affidavit. However, due to the lateness of service by the respondent on Mr Kirkup of the affidavit supporting that motion, I was not prepared to permit the respondent to proceed with the motion if the respondent proposed to rely on that affidavit. I therefore offered the respondent the option of proceeding with the motion without relying on the affidavit; however, the respondent refused that offer. In those circumstances, I stood the motion over till today. 5 Having now heard the motion, I will summarily dismiss the present proceeding, for the same reasons as I summarily dismissed Mr Kirkup's earlier proceeding. I will, however, make no order for costs against Mr Kirkup, given the reasons why I was unable to hear the respondent's motion on 4 September 2001.