Seafish Tasmania Pelagic Pty Ltd v Burke, Minister for the Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities [2013] FCA 782

Seafish Tasmania Pelagic Pty Ltd v Burke, Minister for the Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities [2013] FCA 782

Because the applicants' leave to file further submissions after judgment was reserved was deliberately confined to one topic, their inclusion of further material on another topic already covered in oral submissions was a gratuitous filing without leave. Applying NT Power Generation Pty Ltd v Power and Water Authority, the appropriate course was to strike out the offending paragraphs and award the respondents the costs of the appearance.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure in Judicial Review Proceedings / Mention After Judgment Reserved; Respondents Objected to Parts of Applicants' Reply Submissions Filed Outside the Scope of Leave
Outcome
The respondents' objection was upheld; the final three paragraphs of the applicants' reply submissions were struck out and costs of the appearance were ordered to be the respondents' costs in the proceedings.
Legal Topics
['leave to File Further Written Submissions' 'submissions After Oral Argument' 'written Submissions Outside Scope of Leave' 'strike Out' 'costs']
['practice and Procedure' 'administrative Law'] ['leave to File Further Written Submissions' 'submissions After Oral Argument' 'written Submissions Outside Scope of Leave' 'strike Out' 'costs']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Practice and Procedure in Judicial Review Proceedings / Mention After Judgment Reserved; Respondents Objected to Parts of Applicants' Reply Submissions Filed Outside the Scope of Leave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicants' written submissions included material beyond the confined grant of leave to file further submissions after judgment had been reserved." "Whether the gratuitous paragraphs of the applicants' reply submissions should be struck out." 'Whether the respondents should receive costs of the appearance.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the applicants' leave to file further submissions after judgment was reserved was deliberately confined to one topic, their inclusion of further material on another topic already covered in oral submissions was a gratuitous filing without leave. Applying NT Power Generation Pty Ltd v Power and Water Authority, the appropriate course was to strike out the offending paragraphs and award the respondents the costs of the appearance.

Court Disposition

The respondents' objection was upheld; the final three paragraphs of the applicants' reply submissions were struck out and costs of the appearance were ordered to be the respondents' costs in the proceedings.

Orders

  • ["The final three paragraphs of the applicants' reply submissions be struck out." "Costs of and incidental to the appearance today be the respondents' costs in the proceedings."]