Tait v C Reynolds a Deputy District Registrar of the Queensland District Registry of the Federal Court of Australia [2003] FCA 619 (20 June 2003)

Last Updated: 20 June 2003

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Tait v C Reynolds a Deputy District Registrar of the Queensland District Registry of the Federal Court of Australia [2003] FCA 619

Federal Court Rules O 7 r 6

Croker v Ewen Croker v Challoner [2000] NSWCA 186 Followed

Sarikaya v Victorian Workcover Authority [1997] FCA 1372; (1997) 80 FCR 262 Followed

WILLIAM "BILLY" TAIT v C REYNOLDS A DEPUTY DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF THE QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Q79 of 2003

KIEFEL J

BRISBANE

20 JUNE 2003

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	Q79 OF 2003

BETWEEN:	WILLIAM "BILLY" TAIT APPLICANT
AND:	C REYNOLDS A DEPUTY DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF THE QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	KIEFEL J
DATE OF ORDER:	20 JUNE 2003
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The applicant's motion be dismissed.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	Q79 OF 2003

BETWEEN:	WILLIAM "BILLY" TAIT APPLICANT
AND:	C REYNOLDS A DEPUTY DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF THE QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	KIEFEL J
DATE:	20 JUNE 2003
PLACE:	BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1 I have today head a motion by video-link brought by Mr Tait and ordered that it be dismissed. I explained then that the time available for the video link did not permit me to give reasons and that I would provide them later. I do so now.

2 On 21 May 2003 the Queensland District Registry of this Court received documents from Mr Tait for filing. The related to an appeal brought by him from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal On that day a Deputy District Registrar wrote to Mr Tait advising that since he had not nominated a proper address for service in accordance with O 7 r 6 of the Federal Court Rules, the documents could not be accepted for filing. The Deputy District Registrar provided a proforma notice of change of address and advised that she would hold the documents until it was received.

3 Order 7 r 6 provides:

6(1) An Address for service must be the address of a place within the District for the Registry in the proper place (other than the document exchange referred to in rule 7 of this Order), at which documents in the proceeding may, during ordinary business hours, be left for the person whose address for service it is and to which documents in the proceeding may be posted for that person.'

4 The address for service provided by Mr Tait was `c/- James Cook University Post Office, James Cook University, Townsville, Qld 4811'.

5 Clearly the address provided satisfies the requirements of the rule that it be an address to which documents may be posted, but it would not appear to be one at which documents `may be left' for Mr Tait by way of service. These matters are confirmed by the advices of Deputy District Registrar in her letter:

`I understand from recent correspondence which you forwarded to the Court that James Cook Post Office will only accept documents for you which have been through the Australia Post system. Therefore, documents which may be delivered by hand or by courier cannot be left for you at the Post Office.'

6 The letter from Mr Tait to which this refers I take to be that of 9 May 2003 to the Registry which is filed in Q47 of 2003. In it he advises that the Registry should not attempt to send correspondence to him at the Post Office by way of private courier services and that it would not be accepted unless sent by way of the postal service.

7 There is a further advice from Mr Tait concerning problems with even the mail service. They appear in his letter of 28 April 2003, which appears as annexure FAFSD1 to his affidavit filed on 28 May 2003. In it he requires the Registry to forward only mail to him and then by way of ordinary (postage prepaid) surface mail or by express post. He says that he would not accept responsibility for registered post, on the basis that the post office will not deliver documents or articles to him by this method unless he signs for them, and he refuses to do so. In any event there is no suggestion that the Post Office will accept documents simply left for Mr Tait. The matter of Australia Post's requirements as to registered mail is irrelevant to it.

8 Mr Tait submits that he has substantially complied with the rule by providing a postal address and that the requirement for an address at which documents may be left is not a mandatory requirement. In Sarikaya v Victorian Workcover Authority [1997] FCA 1372; (1997) 80 FCR 262, Black CJ confirmed that the requirement under the rule is additional to a postal address. The rule is couched in obligatory terms and it can readily be appreciated that the purpose of the rule, to facilitate the prompt exchange of documents in litigation, would not be achieved if only service by post were possible. In Croker v Ewen; Croker v Challoner [2000] NSWCA 186, Giles JA held, in a case also involving a post office as the address for service and a rule in identical terms, that the use of it would leave a gap in the scheme contemplated by the rule.

9 Mr Tait has no fixed place of abode and says that, due to financial reasons, he cannot afford to pay someone to accept service on his behalf. Mr Tait is a pension recipient and a student, and is homeless. It is not obvious to me that he has attempted to find an address which could be utilised for him. He declined to answer my questions in that regard. I am aware that this is not the first time that the question of his address for service has been raised with him. On previous occasions however documents had already been accepted for filing, the matter was in Court and there was no respondent appearing to take the point. Even if respondents tend to be tribunals and court officers, this would not make the need for prompt service unnecessary, both from their point of view and that of the Court.

10 If Mr Tait wishes to pursue his appeal he must file an address for service. I cannot see that there is a basis for exemption, even if the rule could be seen as permitting that course, contrary to the interests of respondents joined to proceedings and the Court. In the event that Mr Tait does file an address for service the Court can then consider whether he should be given an extension of time in which to appeal from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

11 The motion to review the Deputy District Registrar's decision will be dismissed.

I certify that the preceding eleven (11) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Kiefel.

Associate:

Dated: 20 June 2003

For the Applicant:	In Person
For the Respondent	No appearance
Date of Hearing:	19 June 2003
Date of Judgment:	20 June 2003