Abbott v Pauline Hanson's One Nation Summary

[2002] QCA 391

COURT OF APPEAL

DAVIES JA

Appeal No 2308 of 2002

TERRY PATRICK SHARPLES (Not Party to Appeal/

(Plaintiff)

DESMOND J O'SHEA ` (Not Party to Appeal/
First Defendant)

PAULINE HANSON'S ONE NATION Respondent
(Second Defendant)

THE HON. ANTHONY JOHN ABBOTT Applicant
(Not Party to Appeal)

BRISBANE
..DATE 26/09/2002

ORDER

DAVIES JA: This is an application to strike out a subpoena purportedly issued by Mr Ettridge, the respondent to this proceeding. There are, it seems to me, a number of fatal errors in the subpoena. The proceeding in which it purports to be filed has been completed some time ago by judgment.
Mr Ettridge was never a representative party on the side he apparently wishes to appear in that proceeding and is not now, and there are other substantial difficulties in the way of this subpoena.

I have read the material and the written outline put forward by Mr Smith. It seems to me plain that the subpoena must be struck out and accordingly I strike it out.

MR SMITH: Would your Honour order costs in my client's favour?

DAVIES JA: Yes, Mr Smith.

DAVIES JA: The subpoena is struck out with costs.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Abbott v Pauline Hanson's One Nation, the applicant sought to strike out a subpoena issued by the respondent, Pauline Hanson's One Nation. The subpoena was allegedly issued by Mr Ettridge, who was not a representative party in the proceeding and had not been one at the time the proceeding was completed. The applicant argued that the subpoena contained several errors and that it should be struck out. The Court of Appeal heard the application and examined the relevant materials to determine the validity of the subpoena.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the subpoena, issued by Mr Ettridge, was valid and should be enforced. The applicant argued that the subpoena contained several fatal errors, including the fact that Mr Ettridge was not a representative party in the proceeding and that the proceeding had been completed some time ago. The Court of Appeal needed to determine if these errors were sufficient grounds for striking out the subpoena.

Davies JA, who heard the application, found that there were indeed several fatal errors in the subpoena. The proceeding in which the subpoena was purported to be filed had been completed some time ago, and Mr Ettridge had not been a representative party on the side he apparently wished to appear in that proceeding. Additionally, there were other substantial difficulties in the way of the subpoena. Based on these findings, Davies JA concluded that the subpoena must be struck out. The Court of Appeal granted the application and ordered that the subpoena be struck out with costs in favour of the applicant.

The Court of Appeal's decision to strike out the subpoena and order costs in favour of the applicant effectively resolved the dispute. The Court of Appeal found that the subpoena was invalid due to several errors, including the fact that Mr Ettridge was not a representative party in the proceeding and that the proceeding had been completed some time ago. The Court of Appeal's decision was final, and no further appeal was possible.

Abbott v Pauline Hanson's One Nation

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established