A fresh report on delayed judgments is well overdue. In fact, we could rightly stand convicted of delays in publishing the delays.
We’ll start with the slowest and gradually move to the the least languid.
Abley and Comcare (Compensation)
Lana Gallagher, an AAT member based in Perth, took nearly three years to deliver her thoughts on a worker’s comp case.
Lynette Abley wanted a review of a decision from a delegate of Comcare which denied liability for fibromyalgia, which she said was caused by data entry and keyboarding for Medicare.
The case was heard in October 2021 and 31 months later, in May 2024, Gallagher affirmed the decision to deny liability.
Her current appointment to the AAT expires on June 30, but she has been reappointed and will transition to the Administrative Review Tribunal when it is up and running.
Guthrie v Mondiale VGL Pty Ltd
In February and March 2022 Judge Antoni Lucev of the Circuit Court heard an case about the termination of John Guthrie’s employment as a truck driver.
In May 2024, over two years later, the judge found that Guthrie was sacked in breach of the Fair Work Act because he exercised a workplace right.
The application was commenced in April 2020 – so a lapse of more than four years before the poor truckie got a result.
Pegasus Supply Solutions Pty Ltd v Collector of Customs
Justice Scott Goodman of the Federales heard an appeal from the AAT about money claimed by the Collector of Customs.
That was in March 2022 with final submissions arriving two years later, resulting in a judgment on May 1, 2024 upholding Pegasus’ appeal and remitting it back for another whirl at the tribunal.
Looks like there’s no rush to wrap it up.
Litigation Capital Partners LLP Pty Ltd v Vale Cash Management (in liq.)
This is another special from Justice Jenni Hill at the WA Supremes.
It took nearly two years to decide a strike out application, with hearings in October 2021, further submissions filed six months later and judgment in March 2024 – 23 months from the last submission.
Twenty-three months is comparatively speedy for Justice Jenni who had a special gong minted in November 2023 to mark her record in the Handicapped Judgments Stakes – a two-and-a-half years hiatus inRock JV Pty Ltd v Theiss Pty Ltd [No 2].
Penetta v Harvey Industries Group Pty Ltd
Michael Panetta was a meat worker sacked along with about another 159 employees from the Harvey Beef business. He sued for breach of his employment contract.
A co-worker Mark Lintott also sued in a related action.
Her Honour Judge Troy Sweeney heard the action on days in June, July, August and September 2021, plus two days in 2022. The last hearing day was June 2, 2022. There were earlier strike out applications in 2017 and 2019.
Twenty-one months after the final hearing day she delivered her reasons on March 7, 2024, rejecting Mr Panetta’s claim in a 984-paragraph judgment comprising 114,700 words.
By comparison, Justice Besanko’s trial judgment in the Roberts-Smith case was 288,539 words, where the scope of the issues to be determined were much wider and heard over many more days than Panetta v Harvey Industries.
In a case involving a bloke who lost his job in a meat works, Judge Sweeney’s output was 40 percent of the output of the humungous BRS judgment.
The meat works redundancy was in 2009, 15 years ago. Panetta commenced proceedings in 2014, and here we are 10 years later. Is an appeal likely?
The South Australian Court of Appeal took nearly two years to get to grips with a dispute over a family farm trust, concerning the appointment and removal of trustees.
Justices Mark Livesey, Sam Doyle and Michael Buss received submissions in September 2022 and rejected the appeal in May 2024 – an intervening period of about 20 months.
At least they beat the 18 months for a SA appeal court decision in Hegarty v Keogh (No.2). See: The money or the box
For the Brougham case Justice Buss was bussed in from Western Australia as part of the great courts of appeal exchange system.
Another from Jenni Hill J and she smartly dispatched this one in a lightening 17 months.
It was all about the winding up of a company where orders were sought about various retainers and costs agreements entered into with Herbert Smith Freehills and Lenhoff & Hotz.
It was heard on one day in November 2022 and delivered on April 10, 2024. Phew!
Judge Antoni Lucev, again, from the Circus Court. This time it’s a hearing about discovery of documents in a claim brought for payment of unpaid wages and superannuation.
The claim commenced 10 years ago in 2020; Lucev had a hearing in February 2023; with a decision 13 months later in March 2024.
The judge listed the matter for further directions on Friday (June 28, 2024) and so far there’s no sign of a trial, so it could be years before something is decided.
In February we reported BJP16 v Minister for Immigration, where Judge Lucev said:
“Delays in the hearing of judicial review migration cases in the court’s Melbourne registry are notorious.”
Even so, he took over a year to deliver his judgment in BJP16.
Spare a thought for Ionut Bogdan Popescu.
≈ ≈ ≈
That’s enough to go on with for now, but its always open to register new contestants for the Golden Snail.
It’s small comfort that the courts have nominated “ideal or practical” times for the delivery of reserved judgments.
For the Federal and the Circus, it’s three months. This also applies to most State courts, although the South Australian judges have a more relaxed six month’s timeframe.