Ivers & Ors v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission & Ors

[2007] HCATrans 496

[2007] HCATrans 496

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Brisbane  No B39 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

DAVID JOHN IVERS

First Applicant

GLENN JAMES IVERS

Second Applicant

JOHN LINDSAY IVERS

Third Applicant

LUKE VINCENT IVERS

Fourth Applicant

MICHAEL JOHN McLEAN

Fifth Applicant

LANCE THOMAS STONE

Sixth Applicant

SAMSON NEALE BACKO

Seventh Applicant

WILLIAM ANTHONY MUSGRAVE

Eighth Applicant

and

AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION

First Respondent

IMB GROUP PTY LTD

Second Respondent

LOGAN LIONS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)

Third Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

HAYNE J
CRENNAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 5 SEPTEMBER 2007, AT 9.18 AM  

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

__________________

HAYNE J:   On 16 September 1999, the applicants and the second and third respondents (together the plaintiffs) commenced a proceeding in the Supreme Court of Queensland against the Trade Practices Commission ("TPC"), the predecessor body of the first respondent, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission ("ACCC"), and against some officers of TPC.  The plaintiffs did not serve the originating process in the proceedings on ACCC until 15 September 2004.  In the intervening period, the originating process had been renewed eight times on the ex parte applications of the plaintiffs.

The proceeding against the officers of TPC was dismissed in 2005.  ACCC then applied to a single judge of the Supreme Court of Queensland (Helman J) for leave to appeal out of time against the orders renewing the originating process or for orders summarily terminating the proceeding against it as vexatious.  On 2 February 2006, Helman J set aside the last order renewing the originating process, set aside service of the process on ACCC and dismissed the plaintiffs' claim against ACCC with costs.

The plaintiffs' appeal to the Court of Appeal of Queensland against the orders of Helman J was dismissed with costs.

The applicants now seek special leave to appeal against those orders.  The second and third respondents have filed submitting appearances.

Because the applicants are now unrepresented, the application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004.

The orders of Helman J were made in exercise of a discretion. The applicants' written submissions demonstrate no reason to doubt the correctness of the Court of Appeal's conclusion that the primary judge was not shown to have erred.  The applicants' written case does not raise any question of principle of general public importance which would warrant consideration by this Court.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. I publish that disposition.

AT 9.20 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED