Milne v Rally Australia Pty Limited [2009] FCA 1101

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Milne v Rally Australia Pty Limited [2009] FCA 1101 MILNE v RALLY AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED

NSD 914 of 2009

STONE J

29 SEPTEMBER 2009

SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION NSD 914 of 2009

BETWEEN: MILNE

Applicant

AND: RALLY AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED

Respondent

JUDGE: STONE J

DATE OF ORDER: 29 SEPTEMBER 2009

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the interlocutory application as agreed or taxed, such costs to be payable forthwith.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court's website. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

general division NSD 914 of 2009

BETWEEN: KATIE MILNE

Applicant

AND: RALLY AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED

Respondent

JUDGE: STONE J

DATE: 29 SEPTEMBER 2009

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 On 24 August 2009 the applicant, Ms Katie Milne, filed an application under ss 67A and 475(1)(b) of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (the Act) seeking to restrain the respondent from carrying on a motor car rally in the Tweed and Kyogle Local Government areas. As the rally was to be held during the period from 3 to 6 September 2009 the application was attended with considerable urgency and came before me as duty judge at 2.15 pm on 27 August 2009. At the conclusion of the hearing on 27 August I dismissed the application for interlocutory relief and undertook to provide written reasons and to make an order for costs at a later date. These are my reasons. 2 At the hearing the applicant sought leave to have Mr Alan Oshlack represent her. Mr Oshlack is not a legal practitioner and has no right of appearance in this Court. He may appear with the leave of the Court. The applicant said she had not sought legal representation as Mr Oshlack has an intimate knowledge of the matter and would be the best person to represent her. Ms Milne said that Mr Oshlack had represented her in the past and she had more confidence in him than any lawyer. 3 From my questioning of her I concluded that Ms Milne appeared to understand the disadvantages that might arise from her not having a legally qualified representative. It was, however, with considerable reservation as to Mr Oshlack's ability to assist the Court that I gave him leave to appear on the interlocutory application. On both sides the matter was urgent. Given that the commencement of the rally was imminent, if injunctive relief was not to be futile the matter had to proceed immediately. Furthermore the inevitable preparation for such an event, as to which the respondent submitted detailed evidence, made it vital that the respondent have certainty as soon as possible. It was therefore not practical to adjourn the hearing to allow Ms Milne to obtain legal representation even had she wished to do so.