Luck v VP Jack A Henderson - [2023] HCASL 162

LUCK
v
VP JACK A HENDERSON
[2023] HCASL 162
M34/2023

The applicant seeks removal to this Court pursuant to s 40 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) of a cause pending in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria concerning an interim intervention order made against the applicant.
The application for removal is misconceived. It does not raise any real issue arising under the Constitution or involving its interpretation. Nor does the application identify any exceptional basis to justify this Court's interference with the ordinary progression of proceedings. In the circumstances, the applicant has not demonstrated sufficient cause for an order for removal. Accordingly, the application for removal should be dismissed.
The applicant has also filed two applications seeking interlocutory relief. The application for removal having been dismissed, the interlocutory applications must also be dismissed. In any event, the material filed shows no arguable ground for the making of orders of the kind sought. Moreover, the applicant has also filed an affidavit sworn on 6 November 2023. The affidavit, amongst other things, makes an "application for the recusal by Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward and Jagot JJ from the determination of this matter". That "application" is without merit. The applicant has not advanced an intelligible argument to justify the making of such a claim.
Pursuant to r 26.07.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the applications with costs.

M.M. Gordon S.H.P. Steward

9 November 2023

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 Luck v VP Jack A Henderson

Details

AGLC: Luck v VP Jack A Henderson [2023] HCASL 162
Case: [2023] HCASL 162
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Luck v VP Jack A Henderson involves the applicant seeking the removal of an interim intervention order case from the Magistrates' Court of Victoria to the High Court. The legal issues centred on whether the application for removal raised any real constitutional issue or identified an exceptional basis for the High Court's intervention, and whether there were grounds for the interlocutory reliefs and the recusal application. The Court held that the application for removal did not raise any real issue arising under the Constitution or involving its interpretation, and there was no exceptional basis for interference with the ordinary progression of proceedings. The Court also dismissed the interlocutory applications as they did not show any arguable ground for the making of orders of the kind sought. Further, the Court rejected the application for the recusal of certain judges, finding that the applicant had not advanced an intelligible argument to justify such a claim. The Court directed the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the applications with costs.

The reasoning of the Court was grounded in the absence of any significant constitutional issue or exceptional circumstance that would warrant the High Court's involvement in the matter. The Court emphasised that the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient cause for the removal of the proceedings to the High Court. Additionally, the interlocutory applications were dismissed not only because of the lack of arguable grounds but also due to the dismissal of the removal application. The Court also firmly rejected the recusal application, noting that the applicant failed to provide a coherent argument to support such a claim. This comprehensive dismissal was justified by the Court's application of the relevant legal standards and principles, ensuring that the ordinary progression of proceedings was not unduly interfered with.

Orders