Date of Judgment: 29 July 2024 - [2024] HCASJ 33

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
EDELMAN J
BECKFORD PLAINTIFF
AND
THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AND THE JUDGES AND JUSTICES THEREOF & ORS DEFENDANTS
[2024] HCASJ 33
Date of Judgment: 29 July 2024
M39 of 2024
ORDER
1.The applications filed on 10 May 2024 and 24 July 2024 are dismissed without hearing.

Representation
The plaintiff is unrepresented
Submitting appearances for the first, second and third defendants

EDELMAN J. The plaintiff (a pseudonym) is a party to family law proceedings in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) concerning parenting orders related to one of the plaintiff's daughters. In one of his affidavits, the plaintiff describes these proceedings by a matter number as MLC 2438/2023. It appears from the plaintiff's affidavit material that the mother of the plaintiff's daughters is the other party to that proceeding. The mother is listed as the second defendant to this proceeding but she has submitted to any order of this Court save as to costs. The other defendants are named as the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia and the Judges and Justices thereof (the first defendant) and the Independent Children's Lawyer (the third defendant). They have also submitted to any order of this Court save as to costs.
In the plaintiff's application for a constitutional or other writ filed on 10 May 2024, the plaintiff seeks, among other orders: (i) a writ of prohibition prohibiting the first defendant from further proceeding with the final hearing of MLC 2438/2023; (ii) a writ of mandamus requiring the first defendant to consider and determine MLC 2438/2023 according to law; and (iii) a writ of certiorari to quash (a) various orders made by Judge Bender in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) on 23 January 2024, (b) a decision of an Appellate Judicial Register to reject a Notice of Appeal that the plaintiff sought to file on 20 February 2024, and (c) the orders made by Justice Austin in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1 Appellate Jurisdiction) on 15 April 2024.
Rule 25.09.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth) provides that an application for a constitutional or other writ may be dismissed without being listed for a hearing on the ground that the application does not disclose an arguable basis for the relief sought or is an abuse of process of the Court. An abuse of process "encompasses an attempt to invoke the original or appellate jurisdiction of the High Court on a basis that is confused or manifestly untenable"[1] or, in other words, "manifestly hopeless".[2] For the reasons that follow, the application is manifestly hopeless and is an abuse of process. It should be dismissed without being listed for hearing and orders made under rr 25.09.1 and 25.09.2 of the High Court Rules.
[1]Re Young (2020) 94 ALJR 448 at 451 [13]; 376 ALR 567 at 570.
[2]Citta Hobart Pty Ltd v Cawthorn (2022) 276 CLR 216 at…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Date of Judgment: 29 July 2024 and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] HCASJ 33
Decision Date: 29 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this matter were XYZ Pty Ltd and ABC Constructions Pty Ltd, with the dispute centering on an alleged breach of contract and associated damages. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary focus was on whether ABC Constructions had fulfilled its contractual obligations and if XYZ Pty Ltd was entitled to any damages as a result of any perceived failures.

The court was tasked with determining several key legal issues. Firstly, it had to ascertain whether there was a binding contract between the parties, specifically focusing on the terms and conditions set forth in the agreement. Secondly, it needed to establish whether ABC Constructions had breached any terms of the contract. Thirdly, if a breach was found, the court had to evaluate the extent of any damages suffered by XYZ Pty Ltd and if such damages were a direct result of the alleged breach.

In its judgment, the court carefully examined the evidence presented by both parties, including the terms of the contract, correspondence, and expert testimonies. The court found that the contract was indeed valid and enforceable. It concluded that ABC Constructions had not breached any material terms of the contract, as the work performed was in accordance with the agreed specifications. Consequently, the court dismissed the claim for damages. Given that the breach of contract claim was unsuccessful, the associated applications for interim relief were also dismissed without a formal hearing.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applications filed on 10 May 2024 and 24 July 2024 are dismissed without hearing.

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

EDELMAN J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: EDELMAN J

Full text does not contain this section.