Combet & Anor v Commonwealth of Australia & Ors

[2005] HCATrans 775

[2005] HCATrans 775

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S359 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

GREG COMBET

First Plaintiff

NICOLA ROXON MP

Second Plaintiff

and

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

First Defendant

THE HONOURABLE KEVIN ANDREWS MP

Second Defendant

SENATOR THE HONOURABLE NICHOLAS MINCHIN

Third Defendant

Pronouncement of orders

GLEESON CJ
GUMMOW J
KIRBY J
HAYNE J
CALLINAN J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 29 SEPTEMBER 2005, AT 10.07 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

__________________

GLEESON CJ:   This special case was heard in Canberra on 29 and 30 August 2005 by a Court constituted by Justices McHugh, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Callinan, Heydon and myself.  On 30 August 2005 the Court reserved its decision.  The majority of the Court is agreed on the order that should be made and made now.  The Court will now make that order.  The reasons of the members of the Court will be published at a future date.

The order of the Court is the questions stated by the parties in the special case for the opinion of the Full Court are answered as follows:

1.        Question:  Did the plaintiffs or either of them have standing to seek the relief sought in the statement of claim and the further amended writ of summons?  Answer:  It is unnecessary to answer this question.

2.        Question:  If yes to 1, is the withdrawal of money from the Treasury of the Commonwealth to pay for the Government’s advertisements authorised by the departmental appropriation?  Answer:  It is not appropriate to answer this question.

3.        Question:  If no to 2, have the plaintiffs established a basis for any and, if so, which of the relief sought in the amended statement of claim?  Answer:  The plaintiffs have not established a basis for any of the relief sought in the amended statement of claim or the alternative relief foreshadowed at the hearing of the special case, namely, declarations concerning payments to meet expenses incurred by the Commonwealth under contracts and arrangement for and in relation to certain past advertisements.

4.        Question:  If yes to 3, should any such relief be refused on discretionary grounds?  Answer:  It is unnecessary to answer this question.

5.        Question:  Who should pay the costs of the proceedings?  Answer:  The plaintiffs.

I publish that order.

AT 10.09 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED