Geoff Barkla v Registrar Linda Joyce Bush

GEOFF BARKLA
v
REGISTRAR LINDA JOYCE BUSH
[2015] HCASL 181
P27/2015

The applicant attempted to file a writ of summons against the respondent. The writ related to the respondent's refusal to accept for filing an affidavit sworn by the applicant in an appeal pending before the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. Another registrar ordered that the writ not be accepted for filing without the leave of a judge having first been obtained pursuant to O 67 r 5 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA).
The Supreme Court of Western Australia (McKechnie J) ordered that the application for leave to file the summons be dismissed. The Court of Appeal (McLure P, Buss and Mazza JJA) dismissed an appeal by the applicant.
The applicant now seeks special leave to appeal from the orders of the Court of Appeal. The applicant does not have legal representation. The application therefore falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth).
The proceedings below involved questions of practice and procedure which were resolved by the application of well-settled principles. The application raises no question of law which would warrant a grant of special leave to appeal and the draft appeal is bound to fail. 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
4 November 2015 S.J. Gageler

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Geoff Barkla v Registrar Linda Joyce Bush involved an applicant seeking to file a writ of summons against a registrar. The writ pertained to the registrar's refusal to accept for filing an affidavit related to an ongoing appeal in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The application was dismissed by another registrar, who ordered that leave of a judge be obtained before filing the writ. The Supreme Court and subsequently the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal. The applicant now seeks special leave to appeal to the High Court. The applicant is unrepresented, and the application is assessed under rule 41.10 of the High Court Rules.

The legal issues in this case centred on the procedural requirements for filing a writ of summons and the necessity of obtaining leave from a judge under certain circumstances. The key issue was whether the application raised a question of law warranting special leave to appeal to the High Court. Given that the proceedings involved well-settled principles of practice and procedure, the primary concern was whether the applicant could demonstrate a question of law that would justify the High Court's intervention.

The High Court found that the application raised no substantial question of law that warranted special leave to appeal. The issues were procedural and did not extend beyond the well-established principles governing practice and procedure. The Court of Appeal had correctly dismissed the applicant's appeal, and there was no indication that the draft appeal would succeed. Consequently, the application for special leave to appeal was dismissed. The Court directed that an order dismissing the application be drawn up, signed, and sealed by the Registrar.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established