David Robert Siminton v Australian Prudential Regulation Authority

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

David Robert Siminton v Australian Prudential Regulation Authority

[2006] FCA 1398

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment dismissing motion to stay or summarily dismiss proceeding – whether interlocutory judgment attended with sufficient doubt to warrant leave being granted.

Banking Act 1959 (Cth) ss 5, 7, 65A, 65A(11)
The Constitution s 51(xxxi)

Australian Prudential Regulation Authority v Siminton (No 2) [2006] FCA 336 referred to
Australian Prudential Regulation Authority v David Robert Siminton (No 4) [2006] FCA 1339 affirmed
Decor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397 applied

DAVID ROBERT SIMINTON v AUSTRALIAN PRUDENTIAL REGULATION AUTHORITY
VID 1134 OF 2006

WEINBERG J
25 OCTOBER 2006
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VID 1134 OF 2006

BETWEEN:	DAVID ROBERT SIMINTON Applicant
AND:	AUSTRALIAN PRUDENTIAL REGULATION AUTHORITY Respondent

JUDGE:	WEINBERG J
DATE OF ORDER:	25 OCTOBER 2006
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Leave to appeal from Order 1 of the Orders made by Tracey J on 6 October 2006 dismissing Mr Siminton’s notice of motion dated 27 September 2006, is refused.

2.Mr Siminton pay the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority’s costs of and incidental to the application for leave to appeal. 

3.Order 3 of the further Orders made by Tracey J on 6 October 2006, requiring Mr Siminton to report to the Nunawading Police Station each Thursday between 9 am and 5 pm commencing on 12 October 2006, be vacated.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VID 1134 OF 2006

BETWEEN:	DAVID ROBERT SIMINTON Applicant
AND:	AUSTRALIAN PRUDENTIAL REGULATION AUTHORITY Respondent

JUDGE:	WEINBERG J
DATE:	25 OCTOBER 2006
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application by David Siminton for leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment of Tracey J dismissing a motion seeking orders permanently staying or summarily dismissing the proceedings brought against him by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (“APRA”). In support of his motion Mr Siminton invoked the inherent and/or implied jurisdiction of the Court and O 20 r 2 of the Federal Court Rules. He argued that the proceedings had been brought for an improper purpose, that they had been brought without any basis in law and that they had been brought “unconstitutionally”. In that regard, he invoked s 51(xxxi) of the Constitution (no acquisition of property other than on just terms).

2. Tracey J ordered that Mr Siminton’s application be dismissed with costs on 6 October 2006.  His Honour gave reasons for that decision in the form of a “ruling” delivered on that same day:  Australian Prudential Regulation Authority v David Robert Siminton (No 4) [2006] FCA 1339. He noted that a number of the matters raised by Mr Siminton had been agitated before another judge of this Court, Merkel J, earlier this year: Australian Prudential Regulation Authority v Siminton (No 2) [2006] FCA 336. However,…