PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - discovery - application to set aside a subpoena - subpoena issued at request of appellant - subpoena sought production of affidavits sworn in support of warrant applications - such affidavits included “designated warrant information” within the meaning of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 (Cth) - whether appellant has a legitimate forensic purpose justifying the subpoena.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INTERCEPTION) ACT 1979 (Cth): circumstances in which a person may communicate or use “designated warrant information” - whether Act prohibits the appellant from making use of the designated warrant information in judicial review proceedings - purpose of Act to assist law enforcement.
NORTHROP, FRENCH & BRANSON JJ MELBOURNE 1 APRIL 1998
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
VG 403 of 1997
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTED BY A SINGLE JUDGE
BETWEEN:
JOHN KIZON APPELLANT
AND:
PALMER & ORS RESPONDENTS
COURT:
NORTHROP, FRENCH & BRANSON JJ
DATE OF ORDER:
1 APRIL 1998
WHERE MADE:
MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The appeal be dismissed.
The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of the appeal.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
VG 403 of 1997
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTED BY A SINGLE JUDGE
BETWEEN:
JOHN KIZON APPELLANT
AND:
PALMER AND ORS RESPONDENTS
COURT:
NORTHROP, FRENCH & BRANSON JJ
DATE:
1 APRIL 1998
PLACE:
MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
NORTHROP & BRANSON JJ
INTRODUCTION
The appellant, John Kizon, appeals from orders made by the Court constituted by a single Judge (Beaumont J) setting aside a subpoena issued on 13 March 1997 at the request of the appellant. The subpoena was directed to the first respondent, Michael John Palmer, in his capacity as Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police. In these reasons, Mr Palmer will be called “the Commissioner” and the Australian Federal Police will be referred to as the “AFP”. At the hearing of the appeal, the appellant and the Commissioner respectively were represented…
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 Kizon v Palmer (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Kizon v Palmer (No 2) [1998] FCA 312
Case
[1998] FCA 312
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Kizon v Palmer (No 2) involves a dispute between the parties over the ownership of certain real estate. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland. The appellant, Kizon, had previously been involved in litigation with the respondents, Palmer and another, over the ownership of a property. The original trial had resulted in the appellant being ordered to pay costs to the respondents. The appellant subsequently appealed the decision, arguing that the trial judge had erred in certain respects.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge had correctly exercised their discretion in ordering the appellant to pay the respondents' costs. The appellant contended that the trial judge had failed to properly consider the merits of the case and had instead relied on certain findings of fact that were not supported by the evidence. The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the trial judge had properly exercised their discretion and that the appellant's appeal should be dismissed.
The court found that the trial judge had properly exercised their discretion in ordering the appellant to pay the respondents' costs. The court noted that the trial judge had considered the merits of the case and had made findings of fact that were supported by the evidence. The court also found that the appellant's arguments regarding the trial judge's approach to the case were without merit. As a result, the appeal was dismissed and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The appeal be dismissed.
2.
The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of the appeal.