Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
McDonald v State of South Australia [2011] FCA 297 Citation: McDonald v State of South Australia [2011] FCA 297
Parties: FRANCIS MCDONALD v THE STATE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA, KEVIN BOADEN, NANCY SCHUPELIUS, MAUREEN COCHRAM, PETER MITCHELL and SUE HYDE
File number SAD 178 of 2010
Judge: BESANKO J
Date of judgment: 31 March 2011
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Application by respondent to proceeding for order dismissing proceeding as an abuse of process pursuant to O 20 r 5 of the Federal Court Rules — where applicant a former teacher who brought an action against the State of South Australia and individual employees in the Department of Education and Children's Services — where applicant self-represented — where applicant had previously brought an unsuccessful action against the State in relation to substantially the same subject matter in the Supreme Court of South Australia — where statement of claim disclosed a number of causes of action against the respondents some of which had been brought in the previous proceeding — whether doctrines of res judicata, issue estoppel and Anshun estoppel applied to the various causes of action and to all respondents — whether if those doctrines did not apply the action was an abuse of process by relitigation — identity of the applicant's employer HELD: The proceeding was dismissed. Each of the causes of action against all of the respondents could not be maintained either by reason of res judicata, issue estoppel, Anshun estoppel, or should be dismissed as an abuse of process by way of relitigation.
Legislation: Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) s 22 Education Act 1972 (SA) Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (SA) Fair Trading Act 1987 (SA) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 s 31A Federal Court Rules O 9 r 7, O 20 r 5 Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act 1986 (SA) Public Sector Management Act 1995 (SA) s 74 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 (SA) s 54 Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth)
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