David Charles Barrow v Andrew Bolt

DAVID CHARLES BARROW
v
ANDREW BOLT & ANOR
[2014] HCASL 5
M91/2013

The applicant seeks special leave to appeal against orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Ashley and Hansen JJA) refusing leave to appeal against orders made by a single judge of the Supreme Court (Beach J). Beach J had dismissed an appeal against orders made by an Associate Justice (Daly AsJ) on summonses seeking orders in relation to the amendment and striking out of parts of the applicant's pleadings in his action for defamation against the respondents.
As the applicant does not have legal representation, the application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004.
The questions which the applicant seeks to agitate in this Court are interlocutory questions of practice and procedure. No disputed question of principle would conveniently fall for consideration if special leave to appeal were granted.
There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the actual decision of the Court of Appeal.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

K.M. Hayne
12 February 2014 S.M. Crennan

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of David Charles Barrow versus Andrew Bolt and another involves an appeal seeking special leave to appeal against orders made by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The applicant, David Charles Barrow, is seeking to appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision which upheld orders made by a single judge of the Supreme Court, dismissing his appeal against an Associate Justice's decision on summonses related to the amendment and striking out of parts of his pleadings in a defamation action against the respondents. The applicant is proceeding without legal representation, necessitating the application be dealt with under a specific rule of the High Court Rules 2004. The primary questions before the court are procedural and do not involve any significant principles of law that would benefit from further consideration.

The legal issues at hand pertain to the procedural aspects of the applicant's appeal. Specifically, the court must determine whether special leave to appeal should be granted to the applicant to challenge the decisions of both the Associate Justice and the single judge of the Supreme Court. The focus of the application is on interlocutory matters of practice and procedure rather than substantive questions of law or principle. Given that the Court of Appeal's decision appears to be correct, the primary task for the High Court is to decide whether the application meets the criteria for special leave under the rules.

The court found that there was no compelling reason to doubt the correctness of the Court of Appeal's decision. It was noted that granting special leave would not conveniently allow for the consideration of any disputed question of principle. Consequently, the court proceeded to dismiss the application for special leave to appeal. The decision reflects the court's view that the procedural matters raised do not warrant further appellate review and that the Court of Appeal's decision should stand as it was.

The final orders of the court were to direct the Registrar to prepare, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application for special leave to appeal. This decision was made pursuant to rule 41.10.5 of the High Court Rules 2004, which governs the process for applications made by unrepresented applicants. The dismissal of the application effectively concludes the matter, leaving the lower court's decisions intact.

Keep reading for free

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established