Caratti v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police & Anor

Case [2018] HCATrans 207


[2018] HCATrans 207

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S147 of 2018

B e t w e e n -

ALLEN CARATTI

Plaintiff

and

COMMISSIONER OF THE AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE

First Defendant

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA AND JUDGES THEREOF

Second Defendant

GORDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 10 OCTOBER 2018, AT 9.29 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

HER HONOUR:   On 4 June 2018, the plaintiff filed an application for an order to show cause seeking relief in the nature of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition.

The plaintiff’s show cause application was filed outside of the time limits prescribed in rule 25.06.1 and rule 25.07.2 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth). The plaintiff applied for an enlargement of time or for dispensation from compliance with those rules.

On 2 July 2018, the first defendant filed a summons seeking orders that the proceedings be dismissed or otherwise permanently stayed as an abuse of process.

On 11 September 2018, the plaintiff filed a summons seeking, among other orders, an enlargement of time in relation to his show cause application; leave to join a defendant to the proceedings; and that the show cause application and the first defendant’s summons be referred for hearing by a Full Court of this Court.

The plaintiff’s summons filed on 11 September 2018 should be dismissed; the plaintiff’s application for an enlargement of time, or for dispensation from compliance with the relevant High Court Rules should be refused; the plaintiff’s application for an order to show cause should be otherwise dismissed; and the plaintiff must pay the defendants’ costs.

I publish my reasons.

AT 9.30 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED

Details
AGLC
Caratti v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police & Anor [2018] HCATrans 207
Case
[2018] HCATrans 207
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of Australia, the plaintiff, Mr Caratti, sought orders in the nature of certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition. The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, the first defendant, sought to have the proceedings dismissed or permanently stayed as an abuse of process. The plaintiff's application was filed outside the prescribed time limits under the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), and he sought an enlargement of time or dispensation from compliance with those rules.

The court was required to determine whether to grant the plaintiff's application for an enlargement of time or dispensation from compliance with the High Court Rules, and whether to dismiss the plaintiff's show cause application. Additionally, the court considered the plaintiff's summons seeking further orders, including leave to join a defendant and referral of the matter to a Full Court.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's summons filed on 11 September 2018. It refused the plaintiff's application for an enlargement of time or dispensation from compliance with the relevant High Court Rules. Consequently, the plaintiff's application for an order to show cause was also dismissed. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendants' costs.

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.