Fox v Armytage

[2005] HCATrans 828

[2005] HCATrans 828

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Melbourne  No M12 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

JEFFREY FOX

Applicant

and

PENNY ARMYTAGE, SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

McHUGH J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 7 OCTOBER 2005, AT 9.03 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

McHUGH J:   The applicant seeks special leave to appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria, given on 26 November 2004, in which Ormiston and Eames JJA dismissed the applicant’s application for leave to appeal against the decision of Williams J, in which her Honour held that the proceedings disclosed no cause of action and dismissed the application.  The proceedings originated from a fencing dispute but have evolved into a dispute over whether someone has tampered with certain tape recordings of the Magistrates Court proceedings concerning the fencing dispute.  The substantive relief sought by the applicant is an order that the respondent, the Secretary to the Department of Justice, conduct investigations into the allegations about the tape recordings, that the respondent deliver what the applicant believes to be the real tapes, and that it make admissions about its failure to conduct an adequate investigation.  The respondent says that those investigations have already been conducted and that it is impossible to produce the tapes.  Eames JA had “no doubt at all that the proceedings are hopeless.”  The materials before this Court lead us to the same conclusion.

The form in which the applicant has presented his submissions does not identify any error in the judgments of the courts below.  He has included a great deal of factual information but that information was either dealt with correctly in previous decisions, or does not assist him in identifying a question of law that would justify a grant of special leave in this case.  Accordingly, the application is refused.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing this application.  I publish our joint reasons.

AT 9.03 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED