Jorgensen v Jorgensen (No 2) [2020] FCA 1318

Jorgensen v Jorgensen (No 2) [2020] FCA 1318

The applicant's interlocutory orders were appropriate because the second respondent had died, Ms Nguyen was apt to be joined in light of proceedings she commenced concerning matters already litigated, analogous interlocutory restraint was consistent with earlier orders, and the proposed methods of service were likely to bring documents to her attention. The first respondent's application was dismissed because it sought to revisit earlier orders, pursue an inappropriate cross-claim, obtain irrelevant document production or discovery and interrogatories, and require a genuine steps statement that was not required; any trial attendance difficulty could be addressed by permitting audiovisual...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Applications in a Federal Court Proceeding Seeking Vexatious Litigant Orders / Hearing of the Applicant's Interlocutory Application and the First Respondent's Interlocutory Application
Outcome
The applicant's interlocutory application was substantially granted; the first respondent's application filed 11 August 2020 was dismissed; the further application marked exhibit 1 was not to be accepted for filing.
Legal Topics
['joinder and Removal of Parties' 'substituted Service' 'interlocutory Restraint on Further Proceedings' 'vexatious Proceedings' 'remote Appearance' 'notice to Produce and Discovery' 'interrogatories' 'genuine Steps Statement' 'costs']
['civil Procedure' 'federal Court Practice and Procedure'] ['joinder and Removal of Parties' 'substituted Service' 'interlocutory Restraint on Further Proceedings' 'vexatious Proceedings' 'remote Appearance' 'notice to Produce and Discovery' 'interrogatories' 'genuine Steps Statement' '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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Applications in a Federal Court Proceeding Seeking Vexatious Litigant Orders / Hearing of the Applicant's Interlocutory Application and the First Respondent's Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the deceased second respondent should be removed as a party' 'Whether Ms Tieu My Nguyen should be added as a respondent and subjected to interlocutory restraint pending determination of the originating application' 'Whether substituted service on Ms Nguyen should be permitted' "Whether the first respondent's application filed 11 August 2020 should be dismissed" 'Whether a further application dated 17 August 2020 should be accepted for filing' 'Whether the first respondent should be permitted to appear at trial by audiovisual or audio means']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's interlocutory orders were appropriate because the second respondent had died, Ms Nguyen was apt to be joined in light of proceedings she commenced concerning matters already litigated, analogous interlocutory restraint was consistent with earlier orders, and the proposed methods of service were likely to bring documents to her attention. The first respondent's application was dismissed because it sought to revisit earlier orders, pursue an inappropriate cross-claim, obtain irrelevant document production or discovery and interrogatories, and require a genuine steps statement that was not required; any trial attendance difficulty could be addressed by permitting audiovisual...

Court Disposition

The applicant's interlocutory application was substantially granted; the first respondent's application filed 11 August 2020 was dismissed; the further application marked exhibit 1 was not to be accepted for filing.

Orders

  • ["The first respondent's (Mr Alan Jorgensen's) application of 11 August 2020 be dismissed." 'The respondents, save for the second respondent, pay the costs of and incidental to the dismissal of the application filed 11 August 2020.' 'The application which is exhibit 1 not be accepted for filling in the Court by the...