FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Hastwell v Kott Gunning (No 5) [2020] FCA 621
ORDERS
NSD 714 of 2017 BETWEEN: HAYDYN…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Hastwell v Kott Gunning (No 5) and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2020] FCA 621
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the principles of natural justice and proportionality in determining whether the stay should be granted. It held that Kott Gunning's request for a medical examination was reasonably required to ensure a fair trial. The court found that Hastwell's refusal to attend the examination was unjustified, and it was in the interests of justice to grant the stay. The court also noted that the stay would not result in an unfair deprivation of Hastwell's right to personal liberty, as the proceedings could be resumed if the issue of the medical examination was resolved.
In light of the above, the court granted the stay of proceedings, effective from 8 June 2020. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the proceeding, including any reserved costs. The court also ordered that Hastwell must pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the interlocutory application and the application to set aside a subpoena. Each party was granted liberty to apply to vary the orders before 2 June 2020, with 72 hours' written notice.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. On and from 8 June 2020 this paragraph takes effect so that the proceeding is permanently stayed.
2. If paragraph 1 of these orders takes effect the applicant must pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the proceeding, including any reserved costs, to be assessed if not agreed.
3. At any time before 2 June 2020 each party has liberty to apply on 72 hours' written notice in relation to paragraphs 1 and 2 of these orders.
4. The applicant must in any event pay:
(a) the respondent's costs of and incidental to the interlocutory application dated 1 October 2019, to be assessed if not agreed; and
(b) the respondent's costs of and incidental to the applicant's application to set aside a subpoena dated 29 November 2019.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.