Gebadi v Woosup

1. The listing for hearing on 4 April 2017 and 5 April 2017 is adjourned.
2. The proceedings be provisionally listed for trial on 25 July 2017 and 26 July 2017 in Cairns at 10.15am.
3. The costs thrown away by reason of the adjournment are reserved for later determination.
4. Pursuant to s 23 and s 37P of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), rule 1.32 and rule 1.36 of the Federal Court Rules 2011, these orders and the reasons for judgment in support of these orders are made and published from Chambers. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

GREENWOOD J: 1 These proceedings have been set for trial on Tuesday, 4 April 2017 and Wednesday, 5 April 2017. This morning a case management hearing took place in order to address matters relating to the trial. The proceeding is concerned with a claim for a declaration that particular agreements are not binding upon the applicants. The applicants also seek a declaration that the first respondent, Mr Larry Woosup and the second respondent, Ms Beverley Tamwoy, breached the duties they owe to a native title claim group described as the Ankamuthi People. The contention is that these respondents breached the relevant duties by entering into a particular agreement and by receiving on their own behalf financial benefits paid pursuant to a document described as the "Purported Ancillary Agreement". The applicants seek a declaration that the financial benefits received by the first and second respondents are held for and on behalf of the Ankamuthi People. They seek an order that the first and second respondents account for the financial benefits they received and an order that they pay to the Ankamuthi claim group an amount of $370,000.00. 2 The first and second respondents filed a defence in which they plead certain facts in answer to the various claims reflected in the amended statement of claim filed on 2 June 2016. The solicitors representing the respondents have ceased to act for them by notice of ceasing to act filed 22 August 2016. Mr Woosup is now self-represented. Since then, the respondents have acted on their own behalf. Mr Woosup has not filed an affidavit (and nor has Ms Tamwoy) deposing to any of the facts upon which they rely in answer to the claim of the applicants. 3 The applicants rely upon the affidavits of Mr Benjamin Tamwoy (an applicant); Mr Charles Woosup (an applicant); Mr Nelson Stephen (an applicant); Mr Mark Gebadi (an applicant); Mr Harold Ludwick (an applicant); Ms Catherine Salee (an applicant); Ms Tracey Ludwick (an applicant); Mr Kevin Wone; four affidavits of Mr Nigel Hales; and an affidavit of Mr Jason Roberts. 4 The solicitors for the applicants have issued to Mr Woosup two notices to admit facts. 5 Mr Woosup has not indicated to the applicants' solicitors any basis for a challenge to the affidavit evidence of any of the deponents. He has not responded to the notices to admit facts. He has not indicated any area or topic about which he would wish to ask any of the deponents any questions and he has not indicated until today whether he requires any one or more of the deponents for cross-examination. The costs of bringing every one of these deponents to Brisbane for a two day trial are very substantial indeed. The money so expended is public money. In the course of the case management hearing this morning, Mr Woosup indicated the sort of factual matters he would wish to put to the witnesses. The matters he would wish to raise with them seem to me to be very generalised indeed. 6 This morning, I expressed concern about the substantial costs which will be incurred in bringing each of these deponents to Brisbane and accommodating them, in the context of a trial where Mr Woosup has not put on any evidence and has no disciplined formulated issues he wishes to contest with each of the deponents. Moreover, Mr Woosup has not responded to the notices to admit facts. I am satisfied that there is no prospect at all of Mr Woosup being in a position to pay the costs of the applicants of and incidental to the proceeding in the event that the applicants are successful and an order for costs in their favour is made. I explained to Mr Woosup that in the event that the applicants are not successful, a question would likely arise as to whether Mr Woosup ought to have a costs order in his favour. I am entirely satisfied that any order that might be made in Mr Woosup's favour would be paid. I am also satisfied that there will be a very substantial saving of costs if the trial of the proceeding is conducted in Cairns rather than Brisbane. Accordingly, with a view to saving costs associated with the proceeding, having regard particularly to s 37M and s 37P of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), the trial of the proceeding on 4 April 2017 and 5 April 2017 will be adjourned. The costs thrown away by reason of the adjournment are reserved for later determination. The trial will be allocated provisional dates of 25 July 2017 and 26 July 2017. The Federal Court Registry will liaise with Mr Woosup about those dates before the Court determines whether they will be formally allocated. I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Greenwood.