Bott v Suttons Motors Australia Pty Ltd

[2007] HCATrans 576

[2007] HCATrans 576

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S12 of 2007

B e t w e e n -

DAVID CHARLES BOTT

Applicant

and

SUTTONS MOTORS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

KIRBY J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 4 OCTOBER 2007, AT 9.10 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J:   The applicant sued the respondent, then his employer, claiming injuries at work in 2000.  His action was dismissed in the District Court of New South Wales (Rein DCJ).  On liability, the trial judge accepted the evidence of the respondent's witnesses.  He rejected the applicant's account of his injuries on credibility grounds, describing the applicant's evidence as bordering on the fictional and the absurd.  His Honour went on also to reject the applicant's claim of significant damage.  He entered judgment for the respondent.

The applicant sought to appeal to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.  He was unrepresented before that Court.  Because of the imperfection of his grounds of appeal and written submissions, the purported appeal (and an application from the respondent, by motion, to dismiss it) were stood over to give the applicant an opportunity to file appeal grounds and argument in proper form. 

On the return of the proceedings, Ipp JA (who gave the reasons and pronounced the orders of the Court of Appeal) expressed the conclusion that the applicant's arguments were based substantially on wishful thinking and false assumptions.  His attempt to lead new evidence and to file submissions in the form propounded was dismissed.  In consequence, the respondent's application to strike out the applicant's (third amended) notice of appeal was granted.

From these orders, the applicant seeks special leave to appeal to this Court.  In this Court too, the applicant is unrepresented.  His application and written statement of his case contains much material that is irrelevant, unintelligible, discursive and embarrassing in the technical sense.

We do not doubt that it is difficult for a person, such as the applicant, to formulate a legally admissible case, without expert legal assistance.  Given the background of this litigation, we have considered the record to see whether, behind the matters submitted, there might have been an arguable point or apparent miscarriage of justice.  We are not convinced that any such point or miscarriage exists.  Essentially, the applicant lost his claim because he was not believed by the trial judge.  It is always very difficult for such a disposition to be reversed on appeal:  Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 at 125-126 [23], 146-147 [90]. There are no prospects that the applicant could do so in this case. No error has been shown in the conclusions and orders of the Court of Appeal. Accordingly, special leave must be refused.

Because the applicant is unrepresented, his application has been dealt with in accordance with r 41.10 of the High Court Rules.  Pursuant to r 41.10.5 of the High Court Rules, we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application for special leave.

I publish that disposition signed by Justice Heydon and myself.

AT 9.13 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED