FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Mbuzi v AGL Retail Energy Ltd [2017] FCA 617 File number: QUD 881 of 2015 Judge: REEVES J Date of judgment: 3 February 2017 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – oral application for leave to amend interlocutory application – application refused Date of hearing: 3 February 2017 Registry: Queensland Division: General Division National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations Sub-area: Regulator and Consumer Protection Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 5 Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person Counsel for the Respondent: Mr A Barlow Solicitor for the Respondent: Geoffrey Mendelson Lawyers ORDERS QUD 881 of 2015 BETWEEN: JOSIYAS MBUZI Applicant AND: AGL RETAIL ENERGY LTD (ACN 074 839 484) Respondent JUDGE: REEVES J DATE OF ORDER: 3 FEBRUARY 2017 THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The respondent's oral application to amend the interlocutory application filed on 29 July 2016 is dismissed. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT REEVES J: 1 Mr Barlow, for AGL Sales Pty Ltd, has made an oral application to amend the interlocutory application filed by AGL Sales Pty Ltd on 29 July 2016. He has sought to amend the name of the respondent in that application from AGL Retail Energy Limited to AGL Sales Pty Ltd. The stated reason for that application is that AGL Retail Energy Limited's name was included on the application by mistake. 2 When the lawyers for AGL Sales Pty Ltd realised this mistake had been made, they communicated with Mr Mbuzi and informed him of it. At the same time, they sought Mr Mbuzi's consent to the application being amended. He responded that he was not willing to consent to that amendment. AGL Sales Pty Ltd's lawyers then sent an email to the chambers of Edelman J, who was the judge then dealing with the matter. In that email they sought to have the application amended informally by his Honour in chambers. The associate to Edelman J responded by email on 12 September 2016, stating, among other things, that "If Geoffrey Mendelson Lawyers wish to bring an application on behalf of their client, then that application should be filed in the ordinary way." 3 Despite that indication, AGL Sales Pty Ltd has not filed an application in the ordinary way. Instead, it has made this oral application. Mr Mbuzi opposes the application on the ground, essentially, that it is unfair to him to proceed with the application today. He claims that is unfair because he is not able to get legal advice on the application and he is not therefore able to prepare properly. Whilst I asked him a number of times to identify any material that he would wish to rely upon that he does not have with him in court, he did not do so. 4 Despite the fact that he has been on notice of AGL Sales Pty Ltd's intention to make this amendment application for some time, given that Mr Mbuzi is self-represented and wishes to obtain legal advice and to prepare for the hearing of the application, I do not think it is appropriate to entertain this oral application to amend. After all, AGL Sales Pty Ltd's lawyers received a clear indication from the associate to Edelman J that they should file this application in the ordinary way. They chose to ignore that indication at their peril. 5 In my view, therefore, AGL Sales Pty Ltd should be required to file this application in the ordinary way. An inordinate amount of time has already been wasted on this matter. Both parties are, to some extent, responsible for that delay. I therefore do not propose to devote any further court time to dealing with this application when it is filed. I will deal therefore with the application, on the papers, without any further hearing. I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Reeves. Associate: Dated: 31 May 2017