Geoffrey John Ashton v Antonio Francis Dorante

[2012] HCASL 141

GEOFFREY JOHN ASHTON

v

ANTONIO FRANCIS DORANTE & ANOR

[2012] HCASL 141
B40/2012

1. The applicant owned a fishing vessel.  The first respondent was a marine safety officer and shipping inspector with authority under the Transport Operations (Maritime Safety) Act 1994 (Qld).  Pursuant to s 172(2) the first respondent directed that the ship could not be operated safely and required it to be surveyed.  The applicant commenced proceedings claiming substantial damages against the first respondent and the second respondent (the State of Queensland).

2. The Supreme Court of Queensland (Henry J) dismissed the applicant's claim for summary judgment. His Honour declined to adjourn the proceedings pending the service of notices under s 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) on the ground that the issues to which the notices went were not live issues in the proceedings. Henry J rejected a submission that Jones J, who had previously heard interlocutory matters in the proceedings before his Honour's retirement, was required to sit on the entire case until its completion. Henry J held that s 23(2) of the Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991 (Qld) requires a judge to complete a hearing which began before retirement, but does not require the judge to hear all disputes related to the proceedings such as the trial. Henry J refused to grant summary judgment because the issues turned on credibility and could only be resolved at a trial. Henry J struck out the statement of claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and as otherwise being defective.

3. The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland (McMurdo P, White JA and North J) dismissed the applicant's appeal.  It also dismissed an application by the applicant that the respondents be punished for contempt of court, and applications by the applicant to call further evidence on the appeal.  The Court of Appeal found no merit in the challenges to Henry J's reasoning, nor in an allegation of bias.

4. The papers filed by the applicant in support of his application for special leave to appeal to this Court completely fail to address themselves to the key aspects of the reasoning of Henry J and of the Court of Appeal.  There is no ground on which an appeal has any prospects of success. 

5. The application is dismissed.

6. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

J.D. Heydon
13 November 2012 V.M. Bell