Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Mewett v Commonwealth of Australia [2003] FCA 808 ROMANA JANE MEWETT v COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA NG 376 of 1994 WHITLAM J 1 AUGUST 2003 SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NG 376 of 1994
ON REMITTAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: ROMANA JANE MEWETT
APPLICANT
AND: COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: WHITLAM J
DATE OF ORDER: 1 AUGUST 2003
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. Judgment be entered for the respondent with costs. 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 NG 376 of 1994
ON REMITTAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: ROMANA JANE MEWETT
APPLICANT
AND: COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: WHITLAM J
DATE: 1 AUGUST 2003
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction 1 This is an action for damages for negligence and breach of duty. It is brought against the respondent ('the Commonwealth') by a former sailor in the Royal Australian Navy ('RAN') and arises out of an incident on 31 August 1979. The Commonwealth admits that it breached the duty of care it owed the applicant, but it does not admit that the applicant suffered any damage as a result of its breach. The so-called gist of negligence is thus in issue. 2 An unusual feature of this case is that the applicant, who was born a male and named Robert John Mewett, now dresses and lives as a woman and uses the name Romana Jane Mewett. The applicant has also undergone what is popularly known as a 'sex change' operation. Nonetheless, the applicant subsequently married a woman called Valmai Margaret Stevens. Although this woman now uses the surname Mewett, I shall refer to her as Ms Stevens in order to distinguish her from the applicant's first wife. So far as the applicant is concerned, whilst it may be confusing having regard to the applicant's appearance and presentation at various stages of life, I will use throughout these reasons the pronouns 'she' and 'her' in relation to the applicant.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate