Gould v Olifant & Ors; Albarran v Companies Auditors and Liquidators Disciplinary Board & Anor

The High Court of Australia considered appeals from decisions of the Supreme Court of New South Wales and the Federal Court of Australia. In the first appeal, *Gould v Olifant & Ors*, the appellant, Mr. Gould, sought to challenge a decision of the Supreme Court which had dismissed his application for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Court of Appeal. The second appeal, *Albarran v Companies Auditors and Liquidators Disciplinary Board & Anor*, involved a challenge by the appellant, Ms. Albarran, to a decision of the Federal Court which had dismissed her application for judicial review of a decision made by the Companies Auditors and Liquidators Disciplinary Board.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the applicants in each case had demonstrated a "sufficient interest" in the subject matter of the proceedings to be granted leave to appeal or to seek judicial review. This required the Court to consider the principles governing standing in Australian administrative law, particularly in the context of appeals from interlocutory decisions and applications for judicial review of decisions by statutory bodies.

The High Court held that in *Gould v Olifant & Ors*, Mr. Gould had not established a sufficient interest to be granted leave to appeal. The Court reasoned that his connection to the underlying dispute was too remote and that he had not demonstrated any direct or substantial interest in the outcome of the litigation. In *Albarran v Companies Auditors and Liquidators Disciplinary Board & Anor*, the Court found that Ms. Albarran also lacked the requisite sufficient interest to challenge the Board's decision. The Court reiterated that a mere intellectual or emotional concern, or a general interest in the proper administration of justice, is insufficient to confer standing. A party must demonstrate a direct, substantial, and particular interest in the subject matter of the proceedings.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed both appeals.