Dr Zahidul Haque v State of Victoria

DR ZAHIDUL HAQUE
v
STATE OF VICTORIA & ORS
[2014] HCASL 86
M148/2013

The applicant brought proceedings in the County Court of Victoria (Judge Smith) claiming damages for malicious prosecution and false imprisonment. Following trial, on 27 August 2013, Judge Smith entered judgment for the defendants.
On 22 November 2013, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Osborn and Beach JJA) dismissed an application for an extension of time in which to appeal from the judgment.
Beach JA, giving the leading judgment, was critical of the proposed notice of appeal for its prolixity, discursiveness and failure to state concisely the grounds of complaint[1]. However, these deficiencies were not the reason for the refusal of leave. That refusal was based upon an assessment that the applicant enjoyed no reasonable prospect of overturning Judge Smith's conclusions that he had failed to establish that the informant was actuated by any improper purpose[2] and that his claims respecting the alleged false imprisonment were "manifestly hopeless"[3].
[1]Haque v State of Victoria [2013] VSCA 332 at [6], [16] citing s 74(2B) of the County Court Act 1958 (Vic) and r 64.05 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 (Vic).
[2]Haque v State of Victoria [2013] VSCA 332 at [19].
[3]Haque v State of Victoria [2013] VSCA 332 at [20].
The applicant applies for special leave to appeal. He does not have legal representation and his application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth). The applicant's draft notice of appeal suffers from the same deficiencies as his notice of appeal below. Nothing in the material filed in support of the application calls into question the correctness of the decision of the Court of Appeal. If special leave to appeal were granted, the appeal would have no prospect of success.
The application is dismissed.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

V.M. Bell
13 May 2014 S.J. Gageler

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dr Zahidul Haque applied for special leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria, which had dismissed his application for an extension of time in which to appeal from the County Court's judgment dismissing his claims for malicious prosecution and false imprisonment. The applicant sought to challenge the lower court's findings that he had failed to prove the informant acted with an improper purpose and that his claims of false imprisonment were without merit. The application was made pro se and under rule 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), which deals with applications from unrepresented parties.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the applicant's application for special leave to appeal met the threshold for grant under the relevant provisions of the High Court Rules and whether the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success if leave were granted. The Court had to consider whether the deficiencies in the applicant's notice of appeal and the supporting material called into question the correctness of the Court of Appeal's decision.

In dismissing the application, the Court found that the applicant's draft notice of appeal suffered from the same deficiencies as the original notice of appeal before the Court of Appeal. Furthermore, the material filed in support of the application did not call into question the correctness of the Court of Appeal's decision. The Court held that if special leave were granted, the appeal would have no prospect of success. Therefore, the application for special leave to appeal was dismissed.

The High Court directed the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application for special leave to appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established