Background
In proceeding QUD 109 of 2026, Gary Michael Richardson, a self-represented litigant, is the applicant and Credit One Equipment Finance Pty Ltd is the respondent. On 13 October 2026, following a case management hearing, the Court ordered Credit One to file and serve any application for summary judgment under rule 26.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) by 4.00pm on 30 October 2026. Further orders set dates for opposing and reply affidavits, written submissions in February 2027, and a hearing listed for one and a half days from 16 February 2027.
Credit One did not meet the initial deadline. At 4.08pm on 30 October, Richardson emailed the Queensland Registry seeking to vacate the subsequent directions and hearing and to relist the matter for case management. Credit One’s representatives responded at 4.31pm, stating that they were finalising the application and supporting affidavits and apologising for the short delay. Richardson subsequently objected to late filing and submitted that Credit One should make a formal extension application.
At 12.32pm on 2 November 2026, Credit One lodged its summary judgment application and two affidavits, but the Registry did not immediately accept them for filing. Justice Collier made further orders on 3 November requiring two-page submissions on acceptance for filing, variation of the timetable, and costs. Those issues were determined on the papers.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Collier accepted the application and affidavits for filing. Her Honour held that rules 1.32, 1.39 and 1.40 permitted an extension even without a formal application, before or after time expired, and treated Credit One’s submissions as an extension application. Applying the discretionary considerations identified in Nassif v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 466 at [44], the Court considered the statutory overarching purpose, the nature and seriousness of non-compliance, its explanation, the proceeding’s history, and prejudice.
The order was a non-consensual timetabling order, and the one-business-day delay was not serious. Credit One explained that on the morning of 30 October it discovered that a transcript intended for its supporting evidence contained privileged material. Although earlier notification would have been desirable, the Court accepted that the issue had to be resolved before filing. An earlier late discovery filing did not establish inability or unwillingness to cooperate. The abuse-of-process summary judgment application could end the proceeding early, so refusing Credit One the opportunity to press it would be prejudicial; timetable adjustments would minimise prejudice to Richardson.
The Court declined to require production of the underlying audio recording as a condition of acceptance, noting evidence that Richardson attended the relevant meeting and could challenge relied-upon evidence at the hearing. Orders 1 to 3 of 13 October were replaced: Credit One must serve the application by 4.00pm on 9 November 2026; Richardson must file and serve opposing affidavits by 30 November; and Credit One must file and serve reply affidavits by 14 December. These pre-2027 dates were extended by six business days, while the 2027 dates remained unchanged.
Credit One was ordered to bear its own costs of and incidental to preparing and filing the application through 6 November 2026, and its costs of complying with the 3 November orders. The Court observed that Richardson, as a litigant in person, could not be awarded costs, citing Cachia v Hanes [1994] HCA 14; (1994) 179 CLR 403 at 409 and Australian Super Pty Ltd v Woodward [2009] FCAFC 168 at [60]-[61]. It also held that he should not bear the risk of Credit One’s costs arising from its default, notwithstanding section 1317AH of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
Key Takeaways
- A formal extension application is not indispensable where the Court’s rules permit it to extend time and act on a party’s submissions.
- A short, explained delay, limited prejudice and the potential utility of a summary judgment application supported acceptance for filing on these facts.
- The Court adjusted only the pre-2027 affidavit deadlines and left the 2027 submissions and hearing arrangements unchanged.
- Credit One bears the specified costs associated with its late application and the consequent procedural orders.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the fact-specific management of non-compliance with a timetabling order under the Federal Court’s extension powers and the overarching purpose in section 37M of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). It does not decide the merits of Credit One’s proposed abuse-of-process application.
It also separates permission to file from disputes over underlying evidence: possible production of the audio recording was left to appropriate submissions at the summary judgment hearing rather than made a precondition to filing.