FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Singh v Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (No 2) [2011] FCA 212 Citation: Singh v Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (No 2) [2011] FCA 212 Parties: MOHINDER SINGH v SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS File number: VID 1106 of 2010 Judge: BROMBERG J Date of judgment: 23 February 2011 Cases cited: Sterling Pharmaceuticals Proprietary Limited v The Boots Company (Australia) Pty Ltd (1992) 34 FCR 287 Date of hearing: 23 February 2011 Place: Melbourne Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: No Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 4 Counsel for the Applicant: Applicant appeared in person Counsel for the Respondent: Mr G Moore Solicitor for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore Lawyers IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION VID 1106 of 2010 BETWEEN: MOHINDER SINGH Applicant AND: SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS Respondent JUDGE: BROMBERG J DATE OF ORDER: 23 february 2011 WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The applicant's notice of motion of 14 February 2011 be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the notice of motion. 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 Federal Law Search on the Court's website. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION VID 1106 of 2010 BETWEEN: MOHINDER SINGH Applicant AND: SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS Respondent JUDGE: BROMBERG J DATE: 23 february 2011 PLACE: MELBOURNE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 By notice of motion dated 28 January 2011, the respondent sought an order that this proceeding be stayed until a date not before the date on which the judgments of this court are given in matters numbered VID 234 of 2010 and VID 265 of 2010. On 2 February 2011, having received submissions from the respondent and also from the applicant ("Mr Singh") in this matter, I made orders substantially in accordance with the order sought by the respondent, and I stayed this proceeding until a date not before the date on which the judgments of this court are given in matters numbered VID 234 of 2010 and VID 265 of 2010. 2 By notice of motion dated 14 February 2011, Mr Singh seeks an order that the order that I made on 2 February 2011 be set aside. A further order is sought that, if unopposed, Mr Singh's notice of motion be dealt with in chambers rather than be listed for hearing. I need not deal with that aspect as the matter was opposed, was listed for hearing and has been heard. The respondent accepts that the Court has a jurisdiction to set aside an interlocutory stay order but, in my view, rightly contends that the jurisdiction should only be exercised in limited circumstances, including the demonstration of some fraud in the obtaining of the initial orders or that facts that should have been brought to the attention of the Court on the making of those orders had not been brought, or alternatively, that new facts and circumstances have arisen since the making of the orders that justify the orders being set aside. 3 Mr Singh has filed an affidavit in support of his notice of motion made on 12 February 2011. The affidavit, in essence, adverts to either grounds that were previously argued when the initial orders were made, or seeks to distinguish the decision of Sterling Pharmaceuticals Proprietary Limited v The Boots Company (Australia) Pty Ltd (1992) 34 FCR 287. I relied on the principles set out in Sterling in my reasons for judgment in making the orders that I made on 2 February 2011. It seems to me, having looked at Mr Singh's affidavit and heard him today, that all that Mr Singh seeks to do is contest the correctness of the orders that were made by me on 2 February 2011, and does so raising none of the kinds of grounds that I have referred to which would justify the Court exercising its inherent jurisdiction to set aside its own order. 4 In the circumstances, I will dismiss the notice of motion of 14 February 2011 and order that the costs of that notice of motion be paid by Mr Singh. I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Bromberg. Associate: Dated: 11 March 2011