Ugur v Police Service of New South Wales [2004] FCA 1032

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Ugur v Police Service of New South Wales [2004] FCA 1032 Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) s 46PH(1)(c), 46PO(2) Federal Court Rules Order 10 r 7, Order 81 r 5 HACI EMIN ORHAN UGUR v POLICE SERVICE OF NEW SOUTH WALES N 563 OF 2004 HELY J 6 AUGUST 2004 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 563 OF 2004

BETWEEN: HACI EMIN ORHAN UGUR

APPLICANT

AND: POLICE SERVICE OF NEW SOUTH WALES

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: HELY J

DATE OF ORDER: 6 AUGUST 2004

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application for an extension of time 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 563 OF 2004

BETWEEN: HACI EMIN ORHAN UGUR

APPLICANT

AND: POLICE SERVICE OF NEW SOUTH WALES

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: HELY J

DATE: 6 AUGUST 2004

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 On 19 February 2004 the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission ('HREOC') issued a notice of termination under s 46PH(1)(c) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) ('the HREOC Act') to the applicant in relation to a complaint of racial discrimination on the part of a number of police constables. The letter notified the applicant that he had a period of 28 days within which to make an application to the Federal Court or to the Federal Magistrates Court. That time is fixed by s 46PO(2) of the Act. 2 On 20 April 2004 the applicant lodged an application for an extension of time. The application described a number of police constables as being the respondents against whom the applicant was bringing the application. The applicant did not comply with the provisions of Order 81 r 5 of the Federal Court Rules, and no affidavits have been filed in support of the application. 3 The matter came before me on 30 April 2004. On that occasion I ordered that the applicant file and serve any evidence on which he proposed to rely in support of his application for an extension of time by 18 June 2004, and that the applicant serve the application on the respondents by 18 June 2004. At the applicant's request I adjourned the matter until 9 July 2004 and I indicated that if he did not comply with the directions which I had given, his application might be dismissed on that occasion. 4 On 9 July 2004 the applicant was represented by a solicitor, Miss Bernadette Allas. She sought a further adjournment until 6 August 2004 which I reluctantly agreed to, on the basis that the applicant's application and evidence would be filed and served in the meantime. The application has not been served on the police officers as I directed on the previous two occasions, nor has any affidavit evidence been filed. Ms Allas notified the applicant on 16 July 2004 that she was no longer prepared to act for him. This was confirmed in a letter of 21 July 2004 which she sent to the applicant. 5 The matter has been in the Court for over three months and the directions given on two occasions have not been complied with. The applicant says that he has a bundle of documents with him that constitutes his evidence, but clearly enough the application cannot proceed in the absence of service upon the police. 6 The history of the matter which I have recounted indicates an inability or unwillingness on the part of the applicant to proceed with his application in accordance with the Court's directions and the rules. I therefore make an order pursuant to Order 10 r 7 that the application for an extension of time be dismissed. I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Hely.