Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Halit v Spotless Services Ltd [2008] FCA 1483
AMANDA HALIT v SPOTLESS SERVICES LTD AND ALISON THEOBALD NSD 190 OF 2007
COWDROY J
1 OCTOBER 2008
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 190 OF 2007
BETWEEN: AMANDA HALIT
Applicant
AND: SPOTLESS SERVICES LTD
First Respondent
ALISON THEOBALD
Second Respondent
JUDGE: COWDROY J
DATE OF ORDER: 1 OCTOBER 2008
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application be dismissed pursuant to O 35A r 3(1) of the Federal Court Rules (Cth). 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 190 OF 2007
BETWEEN: AMANDA HALIT
Applicant
AND: SPOTLESS SERVICES LTD
First Respondent
ALISON THEOBALD
Second Respondent
JUDGE: COWDROY J
DATE: 1 OCTOBER 2008
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant's application was filed on 12 February 2007 and came before the Court for first directions on 13 March 2007. There was no appearance by either party on that occasion. Accordingly, the proceeding was stood out of the list. The Court ordered that the proceeding was not to be re-listed until an affidavit of service was filed. 2 As at September 2008 no steps had been taken in the proceeding. On 8 September 2008 the Court sent a letter to the applicant at the address nominated in her application requesting information concerning the progress of the matter. The letter was returned to the Court on 10 September 2008 with a notation on the envelope that read 'Left address/Unknown'. 3 The Court also made attempts to contact the applicant by telephone. Such attempts were unsuccessful. 4 Accordingly, the Court has no way of communicating with the applicant. 5 On 16 September 2008 the Court contacted Paul Morris of the first respondent's legal team. Mr Morris confirmed that he had no recollection of service of the application. The Court forwarded a copy of the application to him on 16 September 2008. Mr Morris was informed that the matter had been listed for directions on 1 October 2008 and that in the interest of avoiding unnecessary costs it was not necessary for the respondents to appear at such directions hearing. 6 It is apparent that the application has never been served. The Court finds that the applicant has failed to prosecute the proceeding with due diligence within the meaning of O 35A r 2(1)(f) of the Federal Court Rules (Cth). The applicant is accordingly in default. The Court orders that the application be dismissed pursuant to O 35A r 3(1) of the Federal Court Rules. I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Cowdroy.
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