FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Budd v Federal Privacy Commissioner [2005] FCA 1264 Federal Court Rules Order 35A rule 3(1)(a) Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) s 5 PAMELA JOAN BUDD v FEDERAL PRIVACY COMMISSIONER NSD 392 OF 2005 HELY J 2 SEPTEMBER 2005 SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 392 OF 2005 BETWEEN: PAMELA JOAN BUDD APPLICANT AND: FEDERAL PRIVACY COMMISSIONER RESPONDENT JUDGE: HELY J DATE OF ORDER: 2 SEPTEMBER 2005 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed, pursuant to Order 35A rule 3(1)(a) of the Federal Court Rules, 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 NSD 392 OF 2005 BETWEEN: PAMELA JOAN BUDD APPLICANT AND: FEDERAL PRIVACY COMMISSIONER RESPONDENT JUDGE: HELY J DATE: 2 SEPTEMBER 2005 PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 Ms Budd made an application for judicial review pursuant to s 5 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) from a decision made by the Federal Privacy Commissioner. That application was made in March of this year but it seemed to me that in the application Ms Budd sought a review of the Federal Privacy Commissioner's decision on its merits and she did not identify any areas where the Federal Privacy Commissioner may have erred in law. 2 At Ms Budd's request I have on a number of occasions adjourned this matter to enable her to seek legal assistance from the legal aid authorities and from a private solicitor. Apparently she has not been successful in obtaining legal assistance from either of those sources. 3 On 1 July 2005 I gave a direction that Ms Budd should lodge an amended application disclosing recognisable grounds of review by 29 July 2005, and advised her that a failure to comply with this direction would put her at risk of her application being dismissed. On 4 July 2005 Ms Budd filed in the Court what she described as an Amended General Application which contained a letter dated 1 July 2005 of many pages, purporting to set out recognisable grounds of review. She also apparently sent to the Australian Government Solicitor some 775 pages of material in purported compliance with the direction I gave. 4 By letters of 4 July 2005 and 7 July 2005, the Australian Government Solicitor notified Ms Budd that in the respondent's view what she had done was not in compliance with my direction and indicated that when the matter next came before the Court it proposed to seek orders of dismissal of the proceedings under Order 35A rule 3(1)(a) of the Federal Court Rules ('the Rules'). 5 Ms Budd has told me that she suffers from psychological illnesses, she cannot leave her house, she has done the best she can to put her case in an intelligible form and it is not her fault that she has not been able to do any better than she has in fact done. All of that may be true, and I would not want Ms Budd to assume that the Court is unsympathetic to her position or to her plight. However, just as Ms Budd is entitled to a fair hearing in this Court so is the respondent. The respondent has to know the case which it has to meet and the case which is to be made against it has to be an intelligible one. 6 I have read Ms Budd's Amended General Application. I do not think that it complies with my order. She has not disclosed intelligible grounds of review and I propose to dismiss the application pursuant to Order 35A rule 3(1)(a) of the Rules. This case has been in the Court for six months. Ms Budd has been given ample opportunity to get legal advice and a time comes when the law must take its course. 7 The order which I make is that the application be dismissed under Order 35A rule 3(1)(a) of the Rules. 8 The Australian Government Solicitor seeks an order that Ms Budd pay the costs of this application. Ms Budd opposes the making of the costs order on the grounds that she is ill, impecunious, a pensioner, cannot get to Court and has not had a fair deal. I am prepared to assume that Ms Budd is impecunious and I accept the other propositions which she has put to me as to her physical condition. However, it seems to me that the respondent has acted reasonably in the prosecution of this case. It has consented to adjournments to enable Ms Budd to get legal advice and she has had six months within which to formulate her claim. I am sympathetic to the position in which she finds herself but what she has put does not provide a sufficient reason for departing from the ordinary practice that unsuccessful litigants should be ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings. 9 I therefore order that the application be dismissed with costs. I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Hely. Associate: Dated: 8 September 2005 Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant appeared by telephone Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor Date of Hearing: 2 September 2005 Date of Judgment: 2 September 2005