Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Morsman by his litigation representative Bampton v State of Victoria (Department of Education and Training) [2021] FCA 374 File number(s): VID 810 of 2018
Judgment of: KERR J
Date of judgment: 16 April 2021
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – approval of proposed agreement for the settlement of a proceedings conducted by a litigation representative on behalf of Applicant – whether prior involvement of lawyer providing advice precludes reliance upon that advice
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 37AF Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 1.34, 9.71(2)(c)
Cases cited: Jones v State of Victoria [2014] FCA 1404 Modra v State of Victoria (Department of Human Services Victoria & Department of Education and Early Childhood Development) [2013] FCA 1041 Wade v State of Victoria (No 2) [2012] FCA 1080
Division: General Division
Registry: Victoria
National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Number of paragraphs: 11
Date of hearing: Determined on the papers
Solicitor for the Applicant: The Applicant was represented by his litigation representative, Ms Bampton
Solicitor for the Respondent: Allens
ORDERS VID 810 of 2018
BETWEEN: RILEY MORSMAN BY HIS LITIGATION REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA BAMPTON Applicant
AND: STATE OF VICTORIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING Respondent
order made by: KERR J DATE OF ORDER: 16 April 2021
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The settlement of these proceedings, as set on in the Deed of Release marked as Annexure "PB-1" to the affidavit of Patricia Bampton, affirmed 17 March 2021, be approved. 2. Pursuant to s 37AF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), on the ground that the order is necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice, Annexures "PB-1" and "PB-2" to the affidavit of Patricia Bampton, affirmed 17 March 2021, be treated as confidential to the parties to this proceeding and until further order: (a) Are to be marked as confidential to the parties on the Court's Electronic Court File; and (b) Are not to be available for public inspection, disclosed in open court or disclosed in the open part of any court transcript. 3. Compliance with r 9.71(2)(c) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) be dispensed with. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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