Kitchen v The Attorney-General of Victoria

This matter concerned an application for special leave to appeal by Mr S.A.L. Kitchen against the Attorney-General of Victoria. The application was heard in the High Court of Australia by Mason CJ, Dawson J, and McHugh J.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether Mr Kitchen, as the applicant, was entitled to present his application for special leave to appeal in person, or if he was required to be represented by counsel. This question arose due to the conflict between Rule 11 of Order 69A of the High Court Rules, which mandates that such applications be made by counsel, and Section 78 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), which generally permits parties to appear personally in federal courts.

Mason CJ, referring to a previous High Court decision in *Hass*, held that Rule 11 of Order 69A was valid and not inconsistent with Section 78 of the Judiciary Act. The Court had previously determined that the rule requiring counsel for applications for special leave to appeal was valid, and that there was no inconsistency between the rule and the Act. Mr Kitchen's request to have the Court provide specific written reasons for this decision, referencing various authorities, was noted. The Court indicated it would follow the precedent established in *Hass*.