Maricic v Jones

The proceedings before the High Court of Australia involved an application by Mr R.R. Maricic for special leave to appeal. The respondents, Ivanne Natalies Jones and Adrian Ronald Down, and Jean Beverly, were represented by Mr P.M. Friedlander, who sought leave to withdraw his appearance due to a lack of instructions from his clients. The third respondent's solicitors also indicated they would not be taking part in the proceedings.

The central legal issue raised by Mr Maricic concerned the interpretation of section 15AB(2)(d) of the *Acts Interpretation Act 1901* (Cth), specifically the admissibility of extrinsic material in statutory interpretation. Mr Maricic also referred to aspects of a judgment by Kirby J concerning a decree nisi made in 1969, and a judgment by Needham J regarding the court's power to appoint an Official Receiver and a potential miscarriage of justice in 1971.

Mason CJ indicated that the Court had reviewed the application book and was familiar with its contents. Mr Maricic sought to draw the Court's attention to specific paragraphs in the judgments of Kirby J and Needham J. However, Mason CJ clarified that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to appoint an Official Receiver or a Royal Commission, which appeared to be a point of contention or a basis for Mr Maricic's application.