//
[2025] ACTSC 182
General information, not legal advice.
Supreme Court of the ACT
2025-05-06
Mossop J
Original judgment source is linked above.
Zoe will write a short plain-English summary of this judgment and email it to you for free: what it was about, what the court decided and why. It can take up to a minute.
General information, not legal advice.
Or create a free account to save it and ask Zoe follow-up questions.
Source: the ACT Courts (www.courts.act.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: Kennedy v Qantas Ground Services Pty Ltd (No 6) Citation: [2025] ACTSC 182 Hearing Date: 6 May 2025 Decision Date: 6 May 2025 Before: Mossop J Decision: (1) Order 1 made on 20 March 2025 is varied by inserting the word “any” prior to the words “expert evidence” in that order. Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – DIRECTIONS – Where plaintiff communicated that, due to being self-represented, he would be unable to comply with court orders pertaining to filing expert evidence – plaintiff did not wish to breach court order – where defendants wished to retain timetable that progressed matter towards a hearing – direction made accommodating for both considerations Parties: Ross Patrick Kennedy (Plaintiff) Qantas Ground Services Pty Ltd (First Defendant) Qantas Airways Limited (Fifth Defendant) Representation: Counsel Self-represented (Plaintiff) M Feletti (First and Fifth Defendant) Solicitors Self-represented (Plaintiff) Sparke Helmore (First and Fifth Defendant) File Number: SC 253 of 2019 MOSSOP J:
This matter has been listed at the request of the plaintiff, Mr Kennedy. The request was made because the current order requires the plaintiff to serve expert evidence by 20 May 2025.
Mr Kennedy communicated that he, because he is unrepresented, would be unable to serve any expert evidence and did not wish to be in breach of an order that required him to do so. His position is that, because he is unrepresented, he will be unable to serve any expert evidence.
The position of the defendants is that the defendants remain concerned to have the matter progressed towards a hearing, and hence, they do not wish to have the existing directions varied in a way that indicated that there was no timetable for the service of any expert material upon which the plaintiff sought to rely.
In order to accommodate both of those considerations, the appropriate way in which to amend order 1 made on 20 March 2025 is to insert the word “any” prior to the words “expert evidence”, so that the direction reads: “The plaintiff is to serve any expert evidence by 20 May 2025”. That will mean that there can be no suggestion that the plaintiff is in breach of the order if he does not serve any expert evidence by that date, but on the other hand, it will ensure that the timetable set by the court in order to have the matter progressed towards a hearing will remain in place.
For those reasons, the order of the Court is: (1) Order 1 made on 20 March 2025 is varied by inserting the word “any” prior to the words “expert evidence” in that order.
I certify that the preceding five [5] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Justice Mossop. Associate: Date: 9 May 2025
Kennedy
Qantas Ground Services Pty Ltd