Henderson v Principal Registrar of the County Court of Victoria & Ors

[2005] HCATrans 901

[2005] HCATrans 901

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Melbourne  No M96 of 2004

B e t w e e n -

THOMAS JESSE HENDERSON

Applicant

and

THE PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR OF THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

First Respondent

THE PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR OF THE VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

THE OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC ADVOCATE

Third Respondent

KARL GENE HENDERSON

Fourth Respondent

THRIFT MAVIS HENDERSON

Fifth Respondent

DULCIE MAVIS HENDERSON

Sixth Respondent

STATE TRUSTEES LIMITED

Seventh Respondent

CARMEL CHRISTIAN HENDERSON

Eighth Respondent

JAMES IAN HENDERSON (DECEASED)

Ninth Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GUMMOW J
KIRBY J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 9 NOVEMBER 2005, AT 9.32 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

__________________

GUMMOW J:   The applicant applies well out of time for special leave to appeal against a decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal (Phillips JA and Ashley AJA).  That Court refused leave to appeal from a decision of the Vice President of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Judge Higgins) to make an

administration order in respect of the applicant pursuant to Pt 5 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1986 (Vic) (“the Act”). The order was made by the Tribunal on a rehearing under s 60A of the Act, following a reference by the County Court of the issue to the Tribunal for its determination under s 66. The reference by the County Court was made in proceedings that had been instituted by the applicant against his father, now deceased, upon a range of claims of injury to person and property.

The administration order is to be reviewed before 4 September 2006 and may be reviewed earlier on application by an interested party and thus does not have the character of a final order.

An appeal lay to the Court of Appeal on a question of law and the Court of Appeal was not satisfied that there was any arguable point fit for appeal.  It reached that conclusion after considering what might have been thought to be possible irregularities in the making of the administration order by the Tribunal.

The applicant raises no arguable grounds for the grant of special leave to appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal.  We have considered the written submissions filed on behalf of the first respondent, the decision of the Court of Appeal and the other written material now before the Court.  There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the Tribunal or of the Court of Appeal.  Accordingly, the application being treated as an application for an extension of time in which to apply for special leave to appeal, the application is refused with costs.

Pursuant to r 41.11.1 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application for an extension of time in which to apply for special leave with costs.  I publish the disposition signed by Kirby J and myself.

AT 9.34 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED