Martens v Stokes [2016] FCA 1010

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Martens v Stokes [2016] FCA 1010 File number: QUD 1029 of 2015

Judge: LOGAN J

Date of judgment: 22 August 2016

Catchwords: COSTS – indemnity basis – where respondents have not confronted their obligations either as model litigants or litigants – failure to file amended defence or complete discovery and make related claims for privilege within times ordered – consequential need for adjournment of trial – Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 37M

Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 37M

Cases cited: Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Philip Morris Inc (1981) 148 CLR 170 at 177 Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pt Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225

Date of hearing: 22 August 2016

Registry: Queensland

Division: General Division

National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 13

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr A Morris QC with Mr G Houston

Solicitor for the Applicant: Pointons Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr R Anderson QC with Mr S McLeod and Mr G Del Villar

Solicitor for the Respondents: Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS QUD 1029 of 2015

BETWEEN: FREDERICK ARTHUR MARTENS Applicant

AND: TANIA ANN STOKES First Respondent

COLIN BROEKHUYSE Second Respondent

LEISA JAMES Third Respondent

JUDGE: LOGAN J DATE OF ORDER: 22 AUGUST 2016

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Within seven (7) days, the solicitors for the respondents are to provide to the solicitors for the applicant a response regarding discovery of each document or category of documents listed in the proposed "Schedule D" previously supplied by the applicant's solicitors, including in respect of each document which the respondents do not intend to discover the reasons therefore. 2. By not later than close of business on 1 October 2016, the respondents must file and serve their Amended Defence. 3. In the event of default with respect to Order 2, the respondents' solicitor must file and serve an Affidavit to explain, in the fullest detail possible, the reasons for such default. 4. By not later than the close of business on 17 October 2016, the respondents are to file and serve the following: (a) an Affidavit by a senior and appropriate officer of the AFP as to: (i) the adequacy of the AFP's discovery; (ii) the adequacy of, and the fullest detail possible of, the AFP's search for relevant documents; (iii) any claim for Legal Professional Privilege, providing the fullest detail possible for the grounds for such claim; (iv) any claim for Public Interest Immunity, providing the fullest detail possible of the grounds for such claim; and (v) any claim for any other form of privilege or immunity from discovery, providing the fullest detail possible of the grounds for such claim; (b) a like Affidavit by a senior and appropriate officer of the CDPP; and (c) like Affidavits by a senior and appropriate officer of each department, instrumentality, agency or office of the Commonwealth which holds or may hold documents relevant to the issues in this proceeding. 5. The trial dates allocated for this matter in the period commencing 17 October 2016 are vacated. 6. This matter is listed for trial for four (4) weeks to commence on 3 April 2017, excluding 26, 27 and 28 April 2017. 7. This matter is listed for an interlocutory hearing on 7 and 8 November 2016 for; (a) further directions; and (b) any application notified in writing by the solicitors for either party to the other. 8. The respondents are to pay the applicant's costs on an indemnity basis: (a) of and incidental to today's directions hearing; and (b) thrown away by reason of the adjournment of the trial, such costs to be taxed and paid forthwith. 9. The respondents' application for leave to appeal Order 8 is refused. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.