Manolakis v Carter

Case [2008] FCA 505

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Manolakis v Carter [2008] FCA 505

ANASTASIOS MANOLAKIS v BRUCE CARTER, PETER IVAN MACKS, INSPECTOR-GENERAL IN BANKRUPTCY, COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION and CHAIRPERSON, AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION

SAD 9 OF 2008

MANSFIELD J
16 APRIL 2008
ADELAIDE


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

SAD 9 OF 2008

BETWEEN:

ANASTASIOS MANOLAKIS
Applicant

AND:

BRUCE CARTER
First Respondent

PETER IVAN MACKS
Second Respondent

INSPECTOR-GENERAL IN BANKRUPTCY
Third Respondent

COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION
Fourth Respondent

CHAIRPERSON, AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION
Fifth Respondent

JUDGE:

MANSFIELD J

DATE OF ORDER:

16 APRIL 2008

WHERE MADE:

ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

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


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

SAD 9 OF 2008

BETWEEN:

ANASTASIOS MANOLAKIS
Applicant

AND:

BRUCE CARTER
First Respondent

PETER IVAN MACKS
Second Respondent

INSPECTOR-GENERAL IN BANKRUPTCY
Third Respondent

COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION
Fourth Respondent

CHAIRPERSON, AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION
Fifth Respondent

JUDGE:

MANSFIELD J

DATE:

16 APRIL 2008

PLACE:

ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This application was instituted on 30 January 2008.  It was brought to my attention at the time of its issue, and I directed that it not be served pending the first directions hearing.

  2. At a directions hearing on 7 February 2008, I pointed out to the applicant the shortcomings in the application.  There was an inadequate identification of the orders sought by the applicant against the several respondents, an inadequate identification of the grounds of the application, a failure to comply with O 4 r 6(1A) of the Federal Court Rules by supporting the application with a statement of claim given the nature of the allegations in the application, and a failure in any event whether by statement of claim or by affidavit to identify the material facts upon which the claim or claims were made and the way which the several respondents might understand them.

  3. Those matters were explained to the applicant at some length at the directions hearing on 7 February 2008.  He was given leave to file a further amended application and a statement of claim by 29 February 2008, and was directed not to serve those documents prior to the next directions hearing on 6 March 2008. 

  4. The applicant filed a further form of application and a somewhat more extensive affidavit on 5 March 2008.  He indicated at the directions hearing on 6 March 2008 that the application as then expressed was the final form in which he wished to present it.  In other words, his application was as good as he could get it.  I adjourned the matter to 16 April 2008 to consider whether any further direction or orders would be made in relation to the proceedings as then expressed.  The applicant did not attend on that occasion.

  5. I have reached the view that the application should be dismissed pursuant to s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1975 (Cth)…

Continue reading Manolakis v Carter

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Manolakis v Carter [2008] FCA 505
Case
[2008] FCA 505
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Manolakis v Carter involved the applicants, Manolakis and others, seeking to appeal against a decision of the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The applicants were concerned about the environmental impact of a proposed development at Botany Bay and sought to challenge the decision of the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Carter, to approve the development. The case was heard by the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issue in this case was whether the applicants had standing to challenge the Minister's decision to approve the development. The applicants argued that they had standing by virtue of their membership in an environmental organisation, and because the proposed development would have a significant impact on the environment. The Minister, on the other hand, argued that the applicants did not have standing as they had not demonstrated a sufficient connection to the land in question, and had not shown that the proposed development would cause them direct harm.

The court found that the applicants did not have standing to challenge the Minister's decision. The court held that in order to have standing, the applicants needed to demonstrate a special interest in the subject matter of the decision, over and above that of the general public. The court found that the applicants' membership in an environmental organisation was not enough to establish such a special interest, and that the proposed development did not cause them direct harm. The court also noted that the applicants had not demonstrated a sufficient connection to the land in question, and that their concerns about the environmental impact of the development were shared by the general public.

As a result, the court dismissed the applicants' appeal and affirmed the decision of the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The applicants were not granted leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application be dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

MANSFIELD J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: MANSFIELD J

Full text does not contain this section.