Anthony Gilbert Martin v State of New South Wales & Anor Anthony Gilbert Martin v State of New South Wales

[2012] HCASL 112

ANTHONY GILBERT MARTIN

v

STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES & ANOR

ANTHONY GILBERT MARTIN

v

STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES & ORS

[2012] HCASL 112

S108/2012

S109/2012

S131/2012

1. In these applications, the applicant seeks special leave to appeal against orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Basten and Meagher JJA and Handley AJA) dismissing the applicant's appeal against orders of the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales (Preston CJ) made on 6 April 2011, allowing the applicant's appeal against orders of the Land and Environment Court (Pain J) made on 24 February 2011, and dismissing the applicant's notice of motion dated 15 August 2011.

2. The applicant brought several proceedings in the Land and Environment Court challenging the grant under the Mining Act 1992 (NSW) of a number of mining tenements.

3. On 6 April 2011, Preston CJ dismissed the applicant's proceedings seeking judicial review of the decision to grant Exploration Licence 7547.  The applicant alleged, among other things, that delegations, applications and decisions resulting in the grant of Exploration Licence 7547 were invalid.  Preston CJ rejected each of the grounds advanced by the applicant.

4. On 24 February 2011, Pain J struck out the applicant's points of claim in proceedings alleging that the grant of Exploration Licence 7613 was null and void.  By further orders, Pain J stayed the proceedings until the applicant provided security for costs, and ordered that the proceedings stand dismissed if the applicant did not provide security within two months of the date of the order.  If security for costs was provided within the time limit, the applicant was entitled to seek leave to file amended points of claim accompanied by an affidavit verifying general statements in the amended points of claim and facts supporting his standing.  On 14 September 2011, the Court of Appeal (Basten JA and Handley AJA) granted the applicant leave to appeal from the orders of Pain J relating to security for costs.

5. On 15 August 2011, the applicant filed a notice of motion in the Court of Appeal seeking various orders in 10 separate proceedings, joining seven respondents.  Before the Court of Appeal, the parties were heard only in relation to the applicant's claims for:  a stay of an order for costs against the applicant; an order that various respondents and their solicitors show cause why they should not be charged with contempt; and an order for exemplary damages against various respondents and their solicitors.

6. On 21 March 2012, the Court of Appeal (Basten and Meagher JJA and Handley AJA) dismissed the applicant's appeal against the orders made by Preston CJ on 6 April 2011, on the ground that none of the matters advanced by the applicant demonstrated any error of law in the reasoning of Preston CJ.  By consent of the parties, the Court of Appeal allowed the applicant's appeal against the orders made by Pain J on 24 February 2011 relating to security for costs, and granted the applicant leave to file amended points of claim in his proceeding challenging the validity of Exploration Licence 7613.  The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's notice of motion dated 15 August 2011, on the ground that the applicant was not entitled to the relief sought.

7. As the applicant is unrepresented, the applications fall to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004.

8. The applicant's written submissions in each application raise no question of law which would justify a grant of special leave to appeal.  Appeals to this Court would have no prospects of success.

9. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the applications.

10        K.M. Hayne

11        15 August 2012

12                   S.M. Crennan