Croker v Deputy Registrar of the High Court of Australia & Anor

[2005] HCATrans 504

[2005] HCATrans 504

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S356 of 2004

B e t w e e n -

CLAYTON ROBERT CROKER

Applicant

and

DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

First Respondent

GEORGE CHALLONER

Second Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

McHUGH J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 5 AUGUST 2005, AT 8.48 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

__________________

McHUGH J: The applicant sought relief in the Federal Court against the Deputy Registrar of the High Court of Australia under s 5 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (“the Act”) and s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) in respect of the Deputy Registrar’s failure to order that the applicant’s application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia not be abandoned. The applicant had applied for special leave to appeal against orders of the New South Wales Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal had dismissed a motion for review of a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal against a decision of a District Court judge that dismissed the applicant’s claim for damages against the second respondent. Justice Allsop held that the applicant had not made out any substantive argument for a claim under the Act and that there was no basis on which to criticize the conduct of the Deputy Registrar. Justice Allsop also held that even if there was a claim available to the applicant under the Act, it would not grant relief as the applicant had failed to take steps in the High Court to resuscitate his application. Justice Allsop refused to grant relief under s 39B of the Judiciary Act because the applicant had not demonstrated any jurisdictional error.

The applicant filed a Notice of Appeal from the judgment of Allsop J.  Justice Madgwick of the Federal Court ordered the proceedings to be stayed until the applicant had provided security for the payment of the second respondent’s costs on the ground that the applicant’s appeal was hopeless.  Justice Hely refused to grant the applicant leave to appeal from the decision of Madgwick J because that decision was not attended by sufficient doubt to justify it being reconsidered by the Full Court and because substantial injustice would not result if leave were refused.

The Full Court of the Federal Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal from the decision of Hely J and ordered that any further proceeding by the applicant in this matter not be accepted for filing unless a Judge directed an officer of the Court to accept the document because it was obvious that the purported “appeal” was incompetent.

The applicant’s special leave application complained that the decision of the Full Court is inconsistent with natural law, rules of natural justice, s 56(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Imp), the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 (UN) and the Declaration of Human Rights 1948 (UN) and prevented the course of justice.

An appeal has no prospects of success and does not raise a question of law of public importance.

The application is dismissed with costs.

Under the power conferred by r 41.11.1 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing this application with costs.  I publish our joint reasons.

AT 8.48 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED