Dunn v The State of Victoria (Department of Education and Training) [2017] FCA 615

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Dunn v The State of Victoria (Department of Education and Training) [2017] FCA 615 File number: VID 423 of 2017

Judge: DAVIES J

Date of judgment: 30 May 2017

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application under r 9.63 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 for appointment of litigation representative

Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), rr 9.61, 9.63

Date of hearing: Determined on the papers

Registry: Victoria

Division: General Division

National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 2

Solicitor for the Applicant: Arnold Thomas & Becker

Solicitor for the Respondent: Minter Ellison

ORDERS VID 423 of 2017

BETWEEN: BRYDIE HARTIGAN DUNN (BY HER NEXT FRIEND KELLY HARTIGAN) Applicant

AND: THE STATE OF VICTORIA (DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING) Respondent

JUDGE: DAVIES J DATE OF ORDER: 30 MAY 2017

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Kelly Hartigan-Dunn be appointed as litigation representative for the applicant. 2. The requirement of r 9.63(2) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 be dispensed with. 3. Costs reserved. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

DAVIES J: 1 The applicant is a minor and therefore, pursuant to Schedule 1 (the Dictionary) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 ("the Rules"), "a person under a legal incapacity". These proceedings were commenced by the applicant's "next friend", her mother Ms Kelly Hartigan-Dunn, when Ms Hartigan-Dunn should have been appointed as litigation representative in this matter: r 9.61 of the Rules. Ms Hartigan-Dunn has applied for an order appointing her as the applicant's litigation representative and for an order that the requirement of r 9.63(2) of the Rules be dispensed with. By consent the application is dealt with on the papers. 2 Ms Hartigan-Dunn has consented in writing to the appointment and evidence has been furnished that she has no interest in the proceeding that is adverse to the interest of the applicant. The application is not opposed by the respondent. I am satisfied that the requirement of r 9.63(3) has been complied with and that the requirement of r 9.63(2) may be dispensed with. The orders will accordingly be made. I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Davies.