Legal Research
Cases
Inglis v Moore

Inglis v Moore

Case [1979] FCA 43 10 May 1979

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

P l e a d i n g -

Lack

p a r t l c u l a r l t y

i n proposed

i~,~cn~!alcnt

D e c l a r a t o r y

R e l i e f

Aiiendmei~t s ~ l e k l n g

cl(?cl i i rat lon t h a t

c r i m e committed

r e f u s e d .

KATHLEEN TSOREL I N G L I S v. P.NDR.Td

JXSLJZ PlOORE, XI?YPFJ,

---.-

-- -

RAYNER	TIWAITCS , 1ilAr:LICE	BRAY,	3EYTi 0 ' 6h'T::.'N,	*S 1 ' r ; ~ k*
----

ROWLASDS .

No. G 97 o f 1977

Corarn:	S t . J c h n .	Erennan	and Davlcs JJ.
Sydney

10 May 1979

P R I N C I P A L	REGISTRY	1	A p p e a l N o .	G97 of	1977
I

GENERAL

D I V I S I O N

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THC

--p

S U P ~ I U

COURT OF

TIIZ AUSTRALIAN

CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN

: KATHLEEN

I S O B E L

I N G L I S

A p p e l l a n t (Plaintiff)

R e s p o n d c n t s ( D e f e n d a n t s )

O R D E R

JUDGES MAKIKG ORDER

St.John, B r e n n a n and Davles JJ.

DATE

O F ORDER

10th May

1 9 7 9 .

WHERE MADE

Sydney.

TIIE COURT ORDERS THAT :

1. T h e appeal be dlsrnissed.

T h e appe l l an t pay

t o t h e respondents

their costs 01

t h e appeal t o he taxed.

I N THE FCDElWL COUHT OF AUSTiiAL1.A )

)

P R i K JP7iL REGISTRY	)	No.	G 97 of	1977
1

GENERAL

D I V I S I O I U '

)

BETia1EEX:	T(Ai'H1XEN ISO3!7L. 1P:CLIS
--

Appel lan t

( P l a l n t l i f )

Respondrnts

(Dcfcndants )

CORAI.1:	S t . Jo'm , Brvnnan and Davies JJ.
DATE :
--	10 Ibiay 1979

T h i s i s an appc"a1 f i m i.hc 0rdc3:-

of Sn:lthcr:.

J. s ~ t t l n g

a s

a Judge of t h e S~premc

Court

th= Aust - ra l lan c ,xp i t a l

T e r r l t w y ,

t h e u l t l m a t c

e f f e c t of

;~hlch

ord,:r

was

t o d ~ c l n i s s

an apj111 c d t l o n f o r ;lzi.lcncLr~.-llt c f ,3

writ

surmnc;ns FUy

t!ir

a d d l…

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 Inglis v Moore

Details

AGLC: Inglis v Moore [1979] FCA 43
Case: [1979] FCA 43
Decision Date: 10 May 1979

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by Kathleen Isobel Inglis against several respondents, including the Commonwealth of Australia and its Attorney-General, arising from a dispute concerning an employment transfer within the Parliamentary Library. The respondents sought to dismiss the appeal and recover costs. The primary issue before the court was whether the proposed amended statement of claim, which sought declarations that the respondents' actions constituted criminal conspiracies, should be allowed. The court found that the proposed pleading was overly broad, vague, and oppressive to the respondents. It did not articulate a clear case of defamation, conspiracy, or other actionable wrongs, and instead sought declarations that would improperly usurp the role of the criminal courts. The court held that the discretion to grant declaratory relief must be exercised with caution, and that the proposed pleading abused the court's process by seeking to have the criminal acts of the respondents declared in civil proceedings. The appeal was dismissed and the respondents' costs were awarded.

Orders