Elliott v Australian Securities and Investments Commission

[2002] HCATrans 406

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Brisbane  No B37 of 2001

B e t w e e n -

RUSSELL CURTIN

Applicant

and

MEADLOW HOLDINGS PTY LTD

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

McHUGH J
KIRBY J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON TUESDAY, 20 AUGUST 2002, AT 2.05 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

McHUGH J:   Would you call this matter three times outside the Court, please?

COURT OFFICER:   No response, your Honour.

McHUGH J:   Thank you.  I have a certificate from the Deputy Registrar in which she advises that she has been advised by the applicant that he does not seek to supplement his written submissions with oral argument.  She also certifies that she has been advised by Hunt & Hunt, lawyers for the respondent, that the respondent will not be appearing at the hearing of this matter and will submit to the order of the Court save as to costs. 

The Court has studied the application book and the submissions filed on behalf of the applicant and the Court is in a position to deal with the matter on the papers.

The Court is of the opinion that this application for special leave to appeal against an order of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland must be dismissed.  The application would require this Court to make findings of fact after applying well‑settled principles of law.  Nothing about the case warrants the grant of special leave to appeal.  We would add that, in any event, an appeal has insufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of leave.  The application is dismissed with costs.

AT 2.07 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED