Kinkead, Francis W v Caboolture Shire Council

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )No. QG 143 of 1995
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY )
GENERAL DIVISION )

BETWEEN: FRANCIS W. KINKEAD

Applicant

AND: CABOOLTURE SHIRE COUNCIL

Respondent

MINUTES OF ORDERS

JUDGE MAKING ORDER:         Drummond J
DATE OF ORDER:              24 November, 1995
WHERE MADE:                 Brisbane

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The applicant's amended application be struck out.

The applicant pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to today.

NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )    No. QG 143 of 1995
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY     )
GENERAL DIVISION                 )

BETWEEN: FRANCIS W. KINKEAD

Applicant

AND: CABOOLTURE SHIRE COUNCIL

Respondent

Coram:    Drummond J
Date:     24 November, 1995
Place:    Brisbane

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

On 13 October, 1995 an application filed by Mr. Kinkead came before me. The only relief sought was relief pursuant to various provisions of the Australian Constitution. Mr. Kinkead's concerns arise out of the conduct of the Caboolture Shire Council which might - and I say nothing more than that - be capable of amounting to an actionable trespass. This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. It cannot deal with each and every claim that a litigant may wish to agitate before a tribunal. It can only deal with those claims that it has jurisdiction to deal with under statutes which confer jurisdiction on it.

None of the claims that Mr. Kinkead brought in his original application based upon the Constitution are claims that this Court had jurisdiction to deal with. Accordingly, I
struck out his entire application on 13 October last, but gave him leave to amend the application to claim relief for trespass or any such other relief as he might see fit to claim. He has not done that. Instead, Mr. Kinkead has amended the application, but only by expanding the description of the claims that he originally brought based upon the Constitution. This Court having no jurisdiction to deal with these claims, I strike out his amended application.

I certify that this and the preceding
one page are a true copy of the
reasons for judgment herein of the
Honourable Justice Drummond.

Associate:

Date: 24 November, 1995

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Kinkead, Francis W v Caboolture Shire Council was heard by Justice Drummond. The applicant, Mr. Kinkead, brought forth claims against the Caboolture Shire Council, alleging that their conduct could amount to actionable trespass. The claims were rooted in various provisions of the Australian Constitution, but Mr. Kinkead's initial application did not specify any statutory basis for the court's jurisdiction. The court struck out Mr. Kinkead's initial application and granted him leave to amend it, suggesting that he could seek relief for trespass or any other appropriate relief.

The primary legal issue in this case was whether the Federal Court had jurisdiction to entertain Mr. Kinkead's claims. The court noted that it is a court of limited jurisdiction and can only hear cases that fall within the statutory boundaries conferring jurisdiction upon it. Mr. Kinkead's initial claims were based on the Constitution, which did not provide a basis for the court's jurisdiction. Despite the opportunity to amend his application, Mr. Kinkead did not seek relief for trespass or any other statutory claim. Instead, he expanded on the constitutional claims, leading the court to conclude that it still lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.

Justice Drummond, therefore, struck out Mr. Kinkead's amended application. The court reasoned that without a statutory basis for jurisdiction, it could not entertain Mr. Kinkead's claims. The court also ordered Mr. Kinkead to pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the proceedings. This decision underscored the importance of adhering to jurisdictional limits and the necessity for litigants to ground their claims in applicable statutes.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established