McKinnon v Commonwealth of Australia [1999] FCA 505

McKinnon v Commonwealth of Australia [1999] FCA 505

The applicant had been notified of medical appointments arranged within the required period after the orders of 19 November 1998 and did not attend them. His factual objections to the appointments were not accepted, and his proposed conditional undertaking was not appropriate given the history of non-attendance and disregard of earlier orders. Although the second respondent had not arranged a further examination, it would be impractical for proceedings to continue only against that respondent when the proceedings against the first, third and fourth respondents were stayed. The application was therefore stayed against all respondents, with costs orders as specified. The applicant's motions...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 April 1999
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Motions in Federal Court Proceedings / Ex Tempore Reasons and Orders on Respondents' Motions to Stay the Application and Applicant's Motions Filed 25 January 1999 and 6 April 1999
Outcome
Application stayed against each respondent; respondents' stay motions granted; applicant's 25 January 1999 motion dismissed in part and stood over in part; applicant's 6 April 1999 motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
['stay of Proceedings' 'medical Examinations' 'interlocutory Motions' 'discovery' 'costs' 'leave to Appeal']
['civil Procedure'] ['stay of Proceedings' 'medical Examinations' 'interlocutory Motions' 'discovery' 'costs' 'leave to Appeal']

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 Motions in Federal Court Proceedings / Ex Tempore Reasons and Orders on Respondents' Motions to Stay the Application and Applicant's Motions Filed 25 January 1999 and 6 April 1999

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant's application should be stayed because he did not attend medical examinations arranged by the respondents after the orders made on 19 November 1998." "Whether the applicant's proposed conditional undertaking to attend future medical examinations should be accepted instead of staying the application." 'Whether the stay should extend to the second respondent although the second respondent did not arrange a particular medical examination after the orders of 19 November 1998.' "Whether the applicant's motion filed on 25 January 1999 should be granted, including relief concerning discovery, a declaration that the first respondent was vexatious, transcripts and documents, and reasons." "Whether the applicant's motion filed on 6 April 1999 should be granted, including relief preventing Hill J from hearing stay applications, transferring appeal matters to another Full Court, and suspending earlier interlocutory orders."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant had been notified of medical appointments arranged within the required period after the orders of 19 November 1998 and did not attend them. His factual objections to the appointments were not accepted, and his proposed conditional undertaking was not appropriate given the history of non-attendance and disregard of earlier orders. Although the second respondent had not arranged a further examination, it would be impractical for proceedings to continue only against that respondent when the proceedings against the first, third and fourth respondents were stayed. The application was therefore stayed against all respondents, with costs orders as specified. The applicant's motions...

Court Disposition

Application stayed against each respondent; respondents' stay motions granted; applicant's 25 January 1999 motion dismissed in part and stood over in part; applicant's 6 April 1999 motion dismissed.

Orders

  • ["Applicant's application against each of the respondents be stayed." "Applicant to pay the respondents' costs of the motions of the first respondent dated 7 August 1998 and the fourth respondent dated 11 August 1998 before Hill J on 19 November 1998, apart from orders as to costs previously made, and the motions of...