Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Sinnott v Chief of Defence Force [2020] FCA 643 File number: QUD 780 of 2019
Judge: LOGAN J
Date of judgment: 30 March 2020
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where respondent sought leave to use a copy of an affidavit for purposes other than those concerning the proceedings in which the affidavit had been filed and served – whether the Harman obligation or implied undertaking attends the affidavit – relevance of public interest considerations with respect to wider use arising from command, control and discipline of the Australian Defence Force and regulation of the conduct of the legal profession
Legislation: Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 (Cth) Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39B Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 31.02(2)(a) Defence (Inquiry) Regulations 2018 (Cth)
Cases cited: Australian Trade Commission v McMahon (1997) 73 FCR 211 Central Queensland Cement Pty Ltd v Hardy [1989] 2 Qd R 509 Hearne v Street (2008) 235 CLR 125 Harman v Home Department State Secretary [1983] 1 AC 280 Hunter Valley Development v Cohen (1984) 3 FCR 344 Liberty Funding Pty Ltd v Phoenix Capital Ltd (2005) 218 ALR 283 Springfield Nominees Pty Ltd v Bridgelands Securities Ltd (1992) 38 FCR 217
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