Helen Underwood v Queensland Department of Communities

HELEN UNDERWOOD
v
QUEENSLAND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITIES
[2013] HCASL 56
B38/2012

On 12 December 2012, pursuant to r 41.10.5, we directed the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the applicant's application for special leave to appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland. The procedural history appears in our reasons for making that direction[1].
[1]Helen Underwood v Queensland Department of Communities [2012] HCASL 179.
By summons filed on 15 February 2013, supported by an affidavit, the applicant seeks to have her application for special leave to appeal re-opened. Pursuant to r 6.01, Kiefel J directed that the application be dealt with in accordance with the procedure set out in r 41.10.
In addition to submissions re-agitating the reasons she advanced in favour of a grant of special leave, the applicant in her written case (styled by her as a summary of argument) submits that re-opening is required to correct alleged errors of fact and law in our reasons of 12 December 2012. She submits that the Court disregarded her arguments and failed to give reasons for its decision. She also submits that the Court, and the courts below, lacked the requisite social and cultural awareness and technical background.
The applicant correctly submits that the refusal of an application for special leave "does not produce a final judgment … which forecloses the re-opening of the matter in an appropriate and, necessarily, very special case where the interests of justice so require"[2]. This case is not an appropriate case. Nothing in the applicant's affidavit or written case suggests any material change of circumstances. Nor do the applicant's allegations of error, failure to consider her arguments, failure to provide reasons, or lack of relevant social and cultural awareness and technical background disclose any basis for re-opening. The interests of justice do not require re-opening.
[2]DJL v Central Authority (2000) 201 CLR 226 at 248 [47]; [2000] HCA 17.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application for re-opening.

S.M. Kiefel
11 April 2013 S.J. Gageler

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Helen Underwood brought an application against the Queensland Department of Communities seeking to have her application for special leave to appeal against a Supreme Court of Queensland decision re-opened. The original application was dismissed on 12 December 2012, and the applicant now sought to have this decision reversed. The application was heard by Kiefel J, who directed that it be dealt with in accordance with r 41.10 of the relevant rules.

The main legal issue the court had to decide was whether the application for re-opening should be granted. The applicant argued that there were alleged errors of fact and law in the reasons for the dismissal, and that the Court had not properly considered her arguments or provided adequate reasons for its decision. She also contended that the Court and the courts below lacked the necessary social and cultural awareness and technical background.

The court found that the application was not appropriate for re-opening. There was no material change of circumstances, and the applicant's allegations of error and lack of consideration did not disclose any basis for re-opening the matter. Furthermore, the interests of justice did not require re-opening. The court concluded that the application should be dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established