[2006] HCATrans 220
IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B97 of 2005
B e t w e e n -
COLIN CANDY
Applicant
and
BRUCE THOMPSON
First Respondent
MARY STARKY
Second Respondent
JOHN KLEKAR
Third Respondent
KAY KELLY
Fourth Respondent
SONJA GOURLEY
Fifth Respondent
IAN McPHAIL
Sixth Respondent
HON DEAN WELLS
Seventh Respondent
STATE OF QUEENSLAND
Eighth Respondent
Application for special leave to appeal
Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders
GUMMOW J
HEYDON J
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 10 MAY 2006, AT 9.20 AM
Copyright in the High Court of Australia
__________________
GUMMOW J: This application arises out of certain events on 8 March 2001, when officers of the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service entered the premises of the applicant and removed a red kangaroo which the applicant did not have a licence to keep.
The Supreme Court of Queensland (Douglas J) dismissed proceedings brought by the applicant for several reasons. The main reasons were that the officers had not trespassed on the applicant’s premises; that they had removed the kangaroo with the applicant’s consent; and that the applicant did not have lawful possession of the kangaroo because it was a “protected animal” under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Qld).
The Court of Appeal (Jerrard JA, Keane JA and Jones J) found no error in Douglas J’s reasoning and dismissed an appeal.
The applicant has been unrepresented at all stages.
The applicant’s application for special leave to appeal, which was filed out of time and is in various respects vexatious and embarrassing, reveals no ground which has any prospects of success in an appeal. Leave to extend time is refused and the application is dismissed.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application for special leave. I publish the disposition signed by Heydon J and myself.
AT 9.21 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED
- AGLC
- Candy v Thompson & Ors [2006] HCATrans 220
- Case
- [2006] HCATrans 220
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court was required to determine the legal issues arising from the appeal. The provided text does not specify these issues, but it indicates that the Court considered the application of certain legal principles in reaching its decision.
Gummow and Heydon JJ, constituting the bench for this matter, applied legal principles to the facts before them. The specific reasoning and the legal principles applied are not elaborated upon in the provided excerpt.
The final orders or outcome of the appeal are not disclosed in the provided text.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.