FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Sims v Suda Ltd [2015] FCA 280 Citation: Sims v Suda Ltd [2015] FCA 280 Parties: DOUGLAS ARTHUR SIMS v SUDA LTD File number: WAD 255 of 2014 Judge: GILMOUR J Date of judgment: 3 February 2015 Date of hearing: 3 February 2015 Place: Perth Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: No Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 2 Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant appeared in person Counsel for the Respondent: Mr NC Ebbs Solicitor for the Respondent: Bennett & Co IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION WAD 255 of 2014 BETWEEN: DOUGLAS ARTHUR SIMS Applicant AND: SUDA LTD (ACN 090 987 250) Respondent JUDGE: GILMOUR J DATE OF ORDER: 3 FEBRUARY 2015 WHERE MADE: PERTH THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The applicant's interlocutory application for leave to file a substituted statement of claim is dismissed. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION WAD 255 of 2014 BETWEEN: DOUGLAS ARTHUR SIMS Applicant AND: SUDA LTD (ACN 090 987 250) Respondent JUDGE: GILMOUR J DATE: 3 FEBRUARY 2015 PLACE: PERTH REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant's interlocutory application for leave to file a substituted statement of claim is dismissed. So far as concerns the other orders which he seeks, that application will be adjourned to a date to be fixed for hearing. I have listened carefully. I have considered his affidavit made on 2 February 2015 filed yesterday in support of the application. It does not disclose, in any sensible or comprehensible manner, the proposed content of any substituted statement of claim. 2 I have also heard Mr Sims attempt to explain what it is that he wishes to do. Nothing that he has told me from the bar table this morning elucidates that issue. This matter has been on foot for a considerable amount of time. He has had since 12 September 2014, or thereabouts to consider his position when the respondent's interlocutory application seeking to strike out his statement of claim was filed. Only yesterday has he taken the steps in response. I take into account that he was hospitalised in late December 2014, and again on or about 11 January this year. However, neither of those matters explains the delay between the date upon which the respondent filed its application to strike out his statement of claim and the time at which he was first admitted to hospital. I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Gilmour. Associate: Dated: 27 March 2015