More fodder from the delayed judgment mill … Judicial torpor … Two years and more to produce sausages … Extended intervals between two events … Who is keeping an eye on productivity rates? 

In Noonan v XYZ Security Services Pty Ltd, t/a Advent Security, the judge took two years and four months to come up with an award of $93,500 for an employee who complained to his boss about being called a “cunt”. 

The complaint, which involved the exercise of workplace rights, was the basis of the employer’s decision to terminate Mr Noonan. 

And it’s not over yet. There’s another hearing on October 24, 2023 in relation to penalties, interest and costs.

This is not a one-off delay from Judge Kirton, as we can see from this snail-like progress: 

[That’s enough, Ed.]

More of the same here … 

It was not the worst delay in the history of judicial productivity, although Mr Nolan commenced his action in 2019 and had to wait nearly four years for the sausage factory to turn out the finished product – 19 months of which were spent with HH making up her mind to dismiss his application in a lengthy 435 paragraphs.

It’s not the first time Justinian has mentioned Judge Baird. 

In the case brought by an author alleging plagiarism and breach of copyright by Zoe Foster Blake, there was a two year hiatus between the hearing in December 2019 and the judgment in December 2021. 

At paragraph 20A under the heading “Another matter”, HH explained: 

“Regrettably, this judgment has been delayed well beyond any indicative time that may have been assumed by the parties at hearing or shortly after final submissions. The passage of time, however, has enabled me to undertake a detailed review of the evidence, in particular the forensic evidence, with the benefit of transcript as well as my contemporaneous notes, to consider the lay and expert written evidence, and the material on which the experts’ opine, the oral evidence of the witnesses in cross‑examination at hearing, and enabled considered conclusions to be drawn.”  

Thank God for the “passage of time”, which gave the judge the chance to undertake a “detailed review of the evidence” and reach “considered conclusions”.