O'Donoghue v Australian Information Commissioner
[2012] FCA 1219
At a glance
Source factsCourt
Federal Court of Australia
Decision date
2012-11-05
Before
McKerracher J
Catchwords
- PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - application for a four month adjournment of a hearing - relevance of applicant's status as a self-represented and incarcerated litigant
Source
Original judgment source is linked above.
Catchwords
Judgment (4 paragraphs)
INTRODUCTION 1 I have before me an application by Mr Vincent O'Donoghue (the applicant) for a four month adjournment of this proceeding. The applicant is self-represented and incarcerated. His adjournment application is opposed by the respondents, who are represented by the Australian Government Solicitor. The proceeding is currently programmed for a final hearing on 6 December 2012. For the reasons that follow, I am minded to exercise my discretion to grant a brief two week adjournment but not for the length of time that the applicant seeks.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY 2 At the first directions hearing on 11 September 2012, I made the following programming orders: 1. The applicant file and serve any affidavits in support of the application by 30 October 2012. 2. The respondents file and serve any affidavits in response by 14 November 2012. 3. The application be listed for hearing on 6 December 2012 at 10.15am. 4. The applicant file and serve an outline of submissions 14 days prior to the hearing. 5. The respondents file and serve an outline of submissions 7 days prior to the hearing. 6. The parties have liberty to apply to vary these orders. 7. Costs be in the cause. 3 On 13 September 2012, the applicant wrote to the Court stating the following: The time allowed is too short in the circumstances and I was unaware of and did not fully appreciate the time frame set out in His Honours (sic) directions and orders during the directions hearing on 11 September 2012. 4 The applicant also indicated that the hearing date of 6 December 2012 would not be suitable but did not provide particulars. 5 On 21 September 2012, in response to a query from my chambers, the respondents stated that they were not in a position to respond as the applicant had provided neither a reason for the proposed variance nor an alternative timetable or date. 6 On 26 September 2012, the Court wrote to the applicant, copying the respondents, requesting him to provide an outline of reasons for seeking a different hearing date and a minute of proposed orders at his earliest convenience. 7 On 3 October 2012, the Court received a letter from the applicant stating the following: Given that there is no urgency in the matter and given that the matter has been before the Courts for some eight years now, and more importantly given that there are many important issues which arise, and given that I am representing myself and given that there are many other matters before the Courts of which the Commonwealth is aware or ought to be aware, and that the Commonwealth is not prejudiced or adversely affected in any way by an extension of time, an appropriately suitable date will be a date not before April 2013 and a further Directions Hearing to be held in March 2013. There are simply no adequate facilities in Hakea Prison to assist or ensure compliance with strict time frames and the Applicant is engaged in other legal proceedings in regards to breach of promise and breach of undertaking to provide a lap-top for personal use in order to assist with the preparation of legal materials. The history of this matter will show that the Commonwealth will object for the sake of objecting. 8 On 4 October 2012, the Court wrote to the respondents, copying the applicant, asking if they had any response to this letter and, in particular, if they were opposed to adjourn the matter to a directions date in March 2013. The correspondence also stated that I was minded to grant a short adjournment but not for the full length of time sought by the applicant, subject to hearing from the respondents. 9 On 9 October 2012, the applicant wrote to the Court, copying in the respondents: Given that no detriment could reasonably be said to, or be expected to flow from any extension of time which [his Honour] is minded to grant, the interests of justice require that such an extension is granted. Justice must be done and be seen to be done. Given the circumstances of the applicants (sic) incarceration and the provision of wholly inadequate facilities to assist in the preparation of the case, and given that the unreasonable, unfair and unjust pressures and demands are imposed on the applicant by the Federal Court in other matters, an adjournment would save the Honourable Court both valuable time and money. 10 The applicant invited me to re-list the matter for directions. 11 On 15 October, the respondents wrote to the Court, copying the applicant, stating that they did not agree to a variation of the orders. They stated that while they would not have objected to a modest extension of time, they note that the applicant seeks the matter be listed for hearing after April 2013. The respondents further submitted that in their view 'the application is a relatively straightforward matter and there is no adequate justification for the excessive delay sought by the applicant'.