State of Western Australia v Ward [1999] FCA 774

State of Western Australia v Ward [1999] FCA 774

The motion was granted because Western Australia proposed to present the fullest and most complete case in the appeals and, as a matter of logic and common sense, should therefore be heard first. The earlier agreed order of presentation had been made at an early stage of the appellate process, and more informed consideration had later been given to the scope of the respective arguments. The second respondents would not be materially prejudiced in light of Western Australia's undertakings to provide transcript gratis and to agree to interpose their argument in the order of proceedings.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 June 1999
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Notice of Motion to Vary Order of Presentation of Oral Submissions; Reasons for Ruling on Order of Addresses
Outcome
Motion granted; order of presentation varied; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['order of Presentation of Submissions' 'order of Addresses' 'variation of Procedural Orders' 'undertakings' 'costs Reserved']
['practice and Procedure' 'appeals' 'native Title'] ['order of Presentation of Submissions' 'order of Addresses' 'variation of Procedural Orders' 'undertakings' 'costs Reserved']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Notice of Motion to Vary Order of Presentation of Oral Submissions; Reasons for Ruling on Order of Addresses

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Order 6 of the orders made by Nicholson J on 9 March 1999 should be varied so that the State of Western Australia presents its oral submissions in respect of its appeal in advance of the submissions of the Northern Territory.' 'Whether varying the order of presentation would materially prejudice the second respondents.']

Ratio Decidendi

The motion was granted because Western Australia proposed to present the fullest and most complete case in the appeals and, as a matter of logic and common sense, should therefore be heard first. The earlier agreed order of presentation had been made at an early stage of the appellate process, and more informed consideration had later been given to the scope of the respective arguments. The second respondents would not be materially prejudiced in light of Western Australia's undertakings to provide transcript gratis and to agree to interpose their argument in the order of proceedings.

Court Disposition

Motion granted; order of presentation varied; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['The undertakings by the State of Western Australia be noted.' 'Order 6 of the orders made by Nicholson J on 9 March 1999 be varied such that the State of Western Australia will present its oral submissions in respect of its appeal in advance of the submissions of the Northern Territory.' 'Costs of this application...