FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Adams v Lambert [2004] FCA 1066 COLIN ADAMS v REGINALD LAMBERT ACD 22 OF 2004 COLIN ADAMS v MATTHEW LAMBERT ACD 23 OF 2004 GYLES J 12 AUGUST 2004 SYDNEY (VIA VIDEO LINK TO CANBERRA) IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY ACD 22 OF 2004 ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: COLIN ADAMS APPELLANT AND: REGINALD LAMBERT RESPONDENT JUDGE: GYLES J DATE OF ORDER: 12 AUGUST 2004 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY (VIA VIDEO LINK TO CANBERRA) THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The motion be dismissed. 2. The necessity for the respondent to have an address for service in the Australian Capital Territory be dispensed with. 3. Leave be granted to the respondent to the appeal to file all documents in the Queensland District Registry. 4. The costs of the motion be the appellant's costs in the appeal. 5. The settlement of the index be expedited. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY ACD 23 OF 2004 ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: COLIN ADAMS APPELLANT AND: MATTHEW LAMBERT RESPONDENT JUDGE: GYLES J DATE OF ORDER: 12 AUGUST 2004 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY (VIA VIDEO LINK TO CANBERRA) THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The motion be dismissed. 2. The necessity for the respondent to have an address for service in the Australian Capital Territory be dispensed with. 3. Leave be granted to the respondent to the appeal to file all documents in the Queensland District Registry. 4. The costs of the motion be the appellant's costs in the appeal. 5. The settlement of the index be expedited. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY ACD 22 OF 2004 ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: COLIN ADAMS APPELLANT AND: REGINALD LAMBERT RESPONDENT IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY ACD 23 OF 2004 ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: COLIN ADAMS APPELLANT AND: MATTHEW LAMBERT RESPONDENT JUDGE: GYLES J DATE: 12 AUGUST 2004 PLACE: SYDNEY (VIA VIDEO LINK TO CANBERRA) REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 Motions have been filed in each of these matters to change the venue for the hearing of an appeal from the Australian Capital Territory to Queensland. The foundation of the applications is that the respondent to each appeal resides in Brisbane, and there is evidence that there will be difficulty in arranging proper representation if the venue is not changed. 2 The respondent to this application, the appellant in the appeal, opposes the application. He supports the status quo of the matter having to date been heard in Canberra, and has given evidence of what he says will be a significant expense in having counsel attend in Brisbane, should the matter go on. 3 I have had the benefit of comprehensive written submissions on behalf of each party in both matters, which have referred me to the relevant authorities and to the relevant portions of the evidence. I will not endeavour to reproduce those arguments in full now. I will indicate those features of the matters that have influenced my decision. 4 Whilst I appreciate that whichever decision is made will have some impact upon the other party, in my opinion, there is no necessity for a change of venue in this case. I am influenced principally by the flexibility that the processes of a national court can bring to the hearing of appeals like these, which raise virtually a bare question of law and thus are not inappropriate to be heard by video link if that is the most practical way of doing so. I understand that video link has some disadvantages but in a bare argument of law, they are not very great. 5 Furthermore, the necessity of having a town agent in the Australian Capital Territory is something that I can waive, and I will do so. Bearing in mind that in each appeal both parties are represented, there should be no difficulty with service of documents, and I will make clear that so far as the respondents to the appeals are concerned in each case documents can be filed in the Brisbane Registry of the Court for transmission to the ACT Registry. If there are any other practical disadvantages, I will do my best to ensure that they are accommodated. 6 There is also some substance in the point made by the solicitor for the respondent to this motion, that there is little evidence of steps having been taken to obtain economical legal representation in the ACT. It may be that such representation can be arranged. The point is made that the issue is important and one of principle, and may interest appropriate members of the bar. 7 Weighing up all of the considerations, in my view a change of venue is not called for. I dismiss the motion in each case. I dispense with the necessity for the respondent to have an address for service in the Australian Capital Territory. I grant leave to the respondent to each appeal to file all documents in the Brisbane Registry of the Court and I indicate that arrangements will be made for a video link hearing of the appeals, if required. 8 Although the motion has failed, the circumstances are such that I do not think it was inappropriate to have the matter raised before the Court so that each side could have their say. Having heard submissions from the parties, I think the appropriate order to make is that the costs of the motion be the appellant's costs in the appeal, and I will also give a direction that the appeals in both matters be heard together. 9 I will order that the settlement of the appeal index be expedited. I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Gyles. Associate: Dated: 17 August 2004 Solicitor for the Appellant: S Watson of Kinneally Miley Solicitor for the Respondents: J Duncan of Marler & Darvall Date of Hearing: 12 August 2004 Date of Judgment: 12 August 2004