Hutchinson v Comcare [2017] FCA 136

Hutchinson v Comcare [2017] FCA 136

Order 3 was made only because the applicant indicated she would obtain legal assistance and only on the condition that any further pleading be prepared and certified by a lawyer. The applicant had already had multiple opportunities to plead her claims and had not shown exceptional circumstances justifying the reopening of an entered interlocutory order under r 39.05. Granting unconditional leave would contradict the basis on which Order 3 was made and would prejudice Comcare. The costs order made on 6 February 2017 was set aside because it was made by oversight and did not reflect the Court's intention, given the requirements of s 570(2)(b) had not been addressed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application to Set Aside Orders Requiring Any Further Pleading to Be Prepared and Certified by a Lawyer / Determined on the Papers
Outcome
Ms Hutchinson's interlocutory application was dismissed, and the order requiring her to pay Comcare's costs of that application was set aside.
Legal Topics
['setting Aside Interlocutory Orders' 'pleadings' 'strike Out' 'summary Judgment' 'self Represented Litigants' 'costs in Fair Work Proceedings']
['practice and Procedure' 'employment and Industrial Relations'] ['setting Aside Interlocutory Orders' 'pleadings' 'strike Out' 'summary Judgment' 'self Represented Litigants' 'costs in Fair Work Proceedings']

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 Application to Set Aside Orders Requiring Any Further Pleading to Be Prepared and Certified by a Lawyer / Determined on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Order 3 of the orders made on 26 October 2016 should be set aside so that the applicant could file a Proposed Fourth Further Amended Statement of Claim without the condition that it be prepared and certified by a lawyer.' 'Whether the applicant should recover costs said to be associated with dealings with law firms.' 'Whether the costs order made on 6 February 2017 against the applicant should be set aside.']

Ratio Decidendi

Order 3 was made only because the applicant indicated she would obtain legal assistance and only on the condition that any further pleading be prepared and certified by a lawyer. The applicant had already had multiple opportunities to plead her claims and had not shown exceptional circumstances justifying the reopening of an entered interlocutory order under r 39.05. Granting unconditional leave would contradict the basis on which Order 3 was made and would prejudice Comcare. The costs order made on 6 February 2017 was set aside because it was made by oversight and did not reflect the Court's intention, given the requirements of s 570(2)(b) had not been addressed.

Court Disposition

Ms Hutchinson's interlocutory application was dismissed, and the order requiring her to pay Comcare's costs of that application was set aside.

Orders

  • ['Order 2 of the orders made on 6 February 2017 is set aside.']