Love v Robbins

-!.J " ~USTRALIA,,&

--- --s,-~)'$-«((('-"

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Office of the Registry

Perth No Pl7 of 1990

B e t w e e n -

BRIAN LOVE

Applicant

and
LINDSAY BRIAN ROBBINS

First Respondent

and
JOHN RODERICK McKECHNIE

Second Respondent

Application for special
leave to appeal

MASON CJ

Love(2) 1 25/10/90
DEANE J
TOOHEY J
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
AT PERTH ON THURSDAY, 25 OCTOBER 1990, AT 4.08 PM
Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR J. COURTIS: If Your Honours please, I appear for the

applicant in this matter. (instructed by Claudio
Russo Shaw)

MR R.J.M. ANDERSON, OC: If the Court pleases, I appear with
my learned friend, MR G.P. O'BRIEN) for the
respondents. (instructed by Bayly & O'Brien)

MASON CJ: Mr Courtis.
MR COURTIS: If Your Honours please, the facts are

identical. The only thing that changes is the
identity of the respondents. It is essentially the
same complaint. In view of Your Honours' decision
in the previous application, I would suspect that
it would follow logically that this application

would not succeed either. I can advance no further
argument than I have already advanced.

MASON CJ: Yes. Thank you, Mr Courtis. The Court need not

trouble you, Mr Anderson. The application is
refused accordingly.

MR ANDERSON: If the Court pleases, may I have costs?
MASON CJ: With the same consequences as to costs, would you
agree, Mr Courtis?

MR ANDERSON: Thank you.
AT 4.10 PM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED SINE DIE

Love(2) 25/10/90

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application for special leave to appeal before the High Court of Australia. The applicant, Lindsay Brian Robbins, sought leave to appeal against a decision, the specifics of which are not detailed in this transcript, but it is understood to be a matter involving the same complaint as a previous application. The respondents were John Roderick McKechnie and another party whose identity is not fully specified but who was represented by Mr R.J.M. Anderson, OC.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether to grant special leave to appeal. The applicant's counsel indicated that the facts were identical to a previous application and that no further argument could be advanced beyond what had already been presented. This implicitly raised the question of whether the applicant had demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant the High Court's intervention.

The Chief Justice, Mason CJ, having heard submissions from the applicant's counsel, indicated that the Court did not require submissions from the respondents' counsel. The Court then refused the application for special leave to appeal. The respondents sought costs, and the Chief Justice indicated that the costs would follow the same consequences as in the previous application, implying an order for costs in favour of the respondents.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

trouble you, Mr Anderson.	The application is
refused accordingly.