Glew v Attorney General (WA)

The case of Glew v Attorney General (WA) involved an appeal against an order made by the Master of the Supreme Court of Western Australia, which restricted the appellant, Mr Glew, from instituting any legal proceedings without first obtaining leave from a court or tribunal. The appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Western Australia (Court of Appeal) on the grounds that none of the grounds of appeal had a reasonable prospect of success. The appellant, Mr Glew, had a history of advancing arguments that the Parliament and courts of Western Australia lacked the power to enact legislation and administer the law, respectively, as they did not conform to the Constitution Act 1889 (WA) and the Commonwealth Constitution. These arguments had been consistently rejected by the courts in various legal actions.

The legal issues the court had to decide were whether the grounds of appeal presented by the appellant had a reasonable prospect of success, particularly in light of the appellant's history of advancing similar arguments in multiple legal actions. The court had to determine whether the appellant's arguments were legally and factually sound and whether the Master's decision to restrict the appellant's ability to institute legal proceedings was justified. The court also had to consider the appellant's application for an order to set aside all decisions of all State Courts involving the appellant and his wife until the hearing of the appeal or the appeal being moved to the High Court.

The court found that the appellant's grounds of appeal were based on the same arguments that had been consistently rejected by the courts in previous legal actions. The court held that the appellant's belief that the Parliament and courts of Western Australia lacked the power to enact legislation and administer the law, respectively, was unfounded and that the Master's decision to restrict the appellant's ability to institute legal proceedings was justified. The court also found that the appellant's application for an order to set aside all decisions of all State Courts involving him and his wife was not warranted.

The appeal was dismissed, and the order made by the Master was upheld. The court held that none of the grounds of appeal had a reasonable prospect of success and that the appellant's history of advancing similar arguments in multiple legal actions did not warrant a different outcome. The court also found that the appellant's application for an order to set aside all decisions of all State Courts involving him and his wife was not warranted and did not affect the outcome of the appeal.