Dudzinski v Centrelink [2003] FCA 308

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Dudzinski v Centrelink [2003] FCA 308 PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – whether O 35 r 7 can be used as an alternative to the appeal process – whether application brought before a judge by a party who has been unsuccessful before that judge on a previous occasion provides a basis for complaint of apprehended or actual bias – whether an interlocutory order for the payment of money can be made prior to determining where there is any entitlement to the payment Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 24 Federal Court Rules, O 52 Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337 followed Décor Corp Pty Ltd v Data Industries (1991) 33 FCR 397 referred to Adam P. Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Phillip Morris Inc (1981) 148 CLR 170 referred to Dyson Appliances Ltd v Hoover Ltd (No 4) (Chancery Division, Mr Justice Laddie 18 February 2003 unreported) approved WALDEMAR DUDZINSKI and ANNA DUDZINSKI v CENTRELINK and JUDY O'SHEA and JOHN CURCURRUTO No Q 15 of 2003 SPENDER J BRISBANE 4 APRIL 2003

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY No Q 15 OF 2003

BETWEEN: WALDEMAR DUDZINSKI

FIRST APPLICANT

ANNA DUDZINSKI

SECOND APPLICANT

AND: CENTRELINK

FIRST RESPONDENT

JUDY O'SHEA

SECOND RESPONDENT

JOHN CURCURRUTO

THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE: SPENDER J

DATE OF ORDER: 4 APRIL 2003

WHERE MADE: BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The notice of motion dated 2 April 2003 seeking an extension of time within which to appeal is declined, and leave to appeal the interlocutory order of 28 February 2003 is refused. 2. The applicant is to pay the respondents' costs, to be taxed if not agreed. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.