Peek v CEO, Australian Government Solicitor (No. 4) [2006] FCA 1157

Peek v CEO, Australian Government Solicitor (No. 4) [2006] FCA 1157

The applicant's motion for leave to amend was dismissed because, despite many opportunities and specific orders, he never filed or provided a proposed amended application, remained in non-compliance with orders requiring him to do so, and had also failed to appear at several directions hearings, showing a lack of cooperation with timely compliance with the Court's processes. Dismissal of the motion did not prevent him from prosecuting the application as previously amended by orders made on 24 August 2005.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 August 2006
Procedural Posture
Federal Court Civil Proceeding; Interlocutory Motion for Leave to Amend Application / Reasons for Order Made on 28 July 2006 Dismissing the Applicant's Motion; Respondents' Motion and the Application Were Adjourned/listed for Hearing on 30 August 2006
Outcome
Applicant's motion filed on 13 December 2005 dismissed; costs reserved; respondents' motion adjourned and application listed for final hearing on 30 August 2006.
Legal Topics
['leave to Amend Application' 'non Compliance With Court Orders' 'dismissal of Interlocutory Motion' 'case Management']
['civil Procedure'] ['leave to Amend Application' 'non Compliance With Court Orders' 'dismissal of Interlocutory Motion' 'case Management']

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

Federal Court Civil Proceeding; Interlocutory Motion for Leave to Amend Application / Reasons for Order Made on 28 July 2006 Dismissing the Applicant's Motion; Respondents' Motion and the Application Were Adjourned/listed for Hearing on 30 August 2006

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant's motion for leave to amend his application should be dismissed where no proposed amended application had been filed or provided despite repeated opportunities and orders." "Whether the applicant's repeated failures to comply with directions and failures to appear at directions hearings justified dismissal of the amendment motion."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's motion for leave to amend was dismissed because, despite many opportunities and specific orders, he never filed or provided a proposed amended application, remained in non-compliance with orders requiring him to do so, and had also failed to appear at several directions hearings, showing a lack of cooperation with timely compliance with the Court's processes. Dismissal of the motion did not prevent him from prosecuting the application as previously amended by orders made on 24 August 2005.

Court Disposition

Applicant's motion filed on 13 December 2005 dismissed; costs reserved; respondents' motion adjourned and application listed for final hearing on 30 August 2006.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's motion, notice of which was filed on 13 December 2005, be dismissed." 'The costs of that motion be reserved to 30 August 2006.' "The respondents' motion, notice of which was filed on 26 May 2006, be adjourned to 9:30 am on Wednesday, 30 August 2006 for hearing." 'The application also be listed for...