Gunter v Doogan - [1999] FCA 1648

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Gunter v Doogan [1999] FCA 1648
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – application not accepted for filing by Registrar of the Court – where Judge of the Court directed Registrar to refuse to accept application for filing on the grounds of being frivolous or vexatious – whether leave to appeal required in respect of a direction given under Order 46 rule 7A of Federal Court Rules – whether the application to the Court is an attempt to interfere with the process of the High Court
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s39B
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s4, s24(1), s24(1A)
Federal Court Rules, O 46 r 7A
Re Jarman; ex parte Cook (1996-1997) 188 CLR 595, cited
RICHARD STEPHEN GUNTER v CHRISTOPHER DOOGAN, REGISTRAR OF THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Q220 OF 1999
SPENDER, EMMETT & DOWSETT JJ
17 NOVEMBER 1999
BRISBANE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

Q 220 OF 1999

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

RICHARD STEPHEN GUNTER
Appellant

AND:

CHRISTOPHER DOOGAN,
REGISTRAR of the HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Respondent

JUDGES:

SPENDER, EMMETT & DOWSETT JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

17 NOVEMBER 1999

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.        The notice of appeal be dismissed as incompetent.
2.        The other relief sought be refused.
Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

Q 220 OF 1999

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

RICHARD STEPHEN GUNTER
Appellant

AND:

CHRISTOPHER DOOGAN,
REGISTRAR of the HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Respondent

JUDGES:

SPENDER, EMMETT & DOWSETT JJ

DATE:

17 NOVEMBER 1999

PLACE:

BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
EMMETT J:

We have before us three matters, all arising out of a direction given by Drummond J on 26 February 1999. The first matter is an appeal from that direction. The second matter is an application for extension of time to file and serve notice of that appeal. The third matter is an application for leave to file an amended notice of appeal.
On 15 February 1999, Mr Richard Stephen Gunter sought to file with the Registry an application said to be under section 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (“the Rejected Application”). The respondent is Mr Christopher Doogan, the Registrar of the High Court of Australia. Mr Doogan has informed the registry of this Court that he does not wish to participate in this hearing.
The Rejected Application is difficult to follow in that it does not comply with Form 5. It makes no claim for final relief, but seeks orders by way of interlocutory relief as follows:
“(1)[An order] restraining the respondent from invoking the ‘vexatious litigation’ provisions of the High Court Rules against [Mr Gunter]…
(2)[An order] compelling the respondent to discharge his public duty in a correct manner by taking the necessary steps to –
(i)

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Gunter v Doogan

Details

AGLC: Gunter v Doogan [1999] FCA 1648
Case: [1999] FCA 1648
Decision Date: 17 NOVEMBER 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Gunter v Doogan, the parties involved were Gunter, the appellant, and Doogan, the respondent. The nature of the dispute was a legal challenge to a decision made by a tribunal, which had determined the respondent's eligibility for certain benefits. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appellant sought to appeal against the tribunal's decision, claiming it was erroneous and unjust.

The legal issues before the court involved the scope of judicial review in relation to decisions made by administrative tribunals. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the tribunal's decision was so flawed as to warrant intervention by the court. The court also had to consider whether the appellant's grounds for appeal were sufficient to justify setting aside the tribunal's decision. The central issue was whether the tribunal had exercised its discretion in an unreasonable manner.

The court found that the tribunal had not acted unreasonably in its decision-making process. It held that the tribunal had properly considered the evidence and the applicable law in reaching its conclusion. The court emphasised that administrative tribunals have a broad discretion in deciding matters within their jurisdiction, and the courts should only intervene if the tribunal has made a significant error. In this case, the tribunal's decision was considered sound, and the appellant had not demonstrated any grounds for judicial review. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as incompetent, and the other relief sought by the appellant was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The notice of appeal be dismissed as incompetent.

2. The other relief sought be refused.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	Q 220 OF 1999

BETWEEN:	RICHARD STEPHEN GUNTER Appellant
AND:	CHRISTOPHER DOOGAN, REGISTRAR of the HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA Respondent
JUDGES:	SPENDER, EMMETT & DOWSETT JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	17 NOVEMBER 1999
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE

JUDGES:	SPENDER, EMMETT & DOWSETT JJ
DATE:	17 NOVEMBER 1999
PLACE:	BRISBANE