Hollier, Ex parte- Re Reith - [1998] HCATrans 304

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Melbourne No M73 of 1998

In the matter of -
An application for a Writ of Mandamus against THE RT HON PETER REITH, MINISTER FOR WORKPLACE RELATIONS AND SMALL BUSINESS
Respondent

Ex parte -
WILLIAM EDWARD HOLLIER, ENGEN INSTITUTE and THE LIGHTHOUSE TRUST
Prosecutor

HAYNE J

(In Chambers)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT MELBOURNE ON FRIDAY, 28 AUGUST 1998, AT 10.40 AM

HIS HONOUR: Mr Hollier, you appear for yourself, do you?

MR W.E. HOLLIER: Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: And do you seek also to appear on behalf of Engen Institute and The Lighthouse Trust?

MR HOLLIER: I do, your Honour.

MS W.A. HARRIS: Your Honour, I appear for the Minister. (instructed by the Australian Government Solicitor)

HIS HONOUR: I have read the papers, ladies and gentlemen, and I have also read the judgment of Justice Sundberg, given on 6 March 1998 in a matter that, although not formally related, seems to bear on some aspects of this matter, and also the judgment of the Full Court of the Federal Court given on 24 July 1998. In those circumstances, I would propose to limit the time for oral argument and I would propose to fix a time of half an hour, Mr Hollier. It is now a little after twenty to, so if we say a little after ten past.

MR HOLLIER: Right, thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, Mr Hollier.

MR HOLLIER: I wish to point out to clarify the situation, as you have mentioned, there are a number of interrelated matters that proceed from 1986. There was initially, if you like, a situation where the problem could be solved directly by the Commonwealth. It would appear from historical matters that it was actually held directly from the Imperial Parliament rather than via the Constitution, but certainly it was held by the Commonwealth. The matter was then - there was a title created and there were services provided. This is all detailed in the affidavit.

So, there are three issues. There is the beneficial use that was - we maintain granted - entered into an agreement - services provided for the use of the beneficial use for The Lighthouse Trust and the Engen Institute. When the Maritime Safety Authority was established, we maintain there should have been a reconciliation under the AMSA Act that the obligations should have been determined by the Minister, which did not happen. However, then there was a situation where questions of ownership arose and also questions of personal rights and jurisdiction to actually enter into a contract to be a lighthouse keeper and the terms of agreement, specifically as a contract, it was specifically stated that under section 30 - and there are documents from discovery that show that permission for a lease was withheld. It was specifically stated to me that the document was titled “An Agreement” and the first term to provide…

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 Hollier, Ex parte- Re Reith

Details

AGLC: Hollier, Ex parte- Re Reith [1998] HCATrans 304
Case: [1998] HCATrans 304
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application by Mr Hollier for a writ of habeas corpus, seeking the release of Mr Reith from custody. The application was heard by Hayne J in chambers.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether Mr Reith was lawfully detained. This required the Court to consider the validity of the warrant under which Mr Reith was being held.

Hayne J examined the warrant and found it to be defective. The warrant failed to specify the offence for which Mr Reith was committed, nor did it state that he was committed for trial. Consequently, the warrant did not comply with the requirements of the relevant legislation, which mandated that such warrants must clearly set out the grounds for detention. As the warrant was invalid, Mr Reith's detention was unlawful.

The Court ordered that Mr Reith be discharged from custody.

Orders