Mathews, Appn by

[1999] HCATrans 151

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Brisbane  No B27 of 1999

In the matter of –

An application by RUSSELL GORDON HAIG MATHEWS for leave to issue a proceeding

For Judgment

CALLINAN J

(In Chambers)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT BRISBANE ON FRIDAY, 11 JUNE 1999, AT 5.011 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

HIS HONOUR:   Then the other matter that was raised.  You sought leave to issue a proceeding following a direction of Justice Kirby.

MR R.G.H. MATHEWS:   Yes, your Honour.  That is totally unrelated to the Telstra matter.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.  But I am against you on that.  I think I told you that last time.  I am against you on that application.

MR MATHEWS:   I did not know – that was not mentioned last time, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   Has it not been raised?

MR MATHEWS:   It has not been raised, that matter, issuing that proceeding, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   It was just done on the papers.

MR MATHEWS:   I see.

HIS HONOUR:   It is not a matter for oral argument normally.

MR MATHEWS:   That is right, your Honour.  Can I receive reasons for the decision on that?

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.  I will ‑ ‑ ‑

MR MATHEWS:   Can I appeal that, your Honour, with all due respect.

HIS HONOUR:   You will have to take your own advice on that.

MR MATHEWS:   I thought that in some cases one can notify their intention to appeal at the time that the decision has been given.

HIS HONOUR:   I am going to refuse that application and I will publish my reasons.

MR MATHEWS:   Thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   Perhaps I should read them on to the transcript and you can get a copy afterwards.  I will read them.  They are only brief.

MR MATHEWS:   But I still will receive it, though.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.

MR MATHEWS:   Thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   The applicant, Mr Russell Mathews, seeks leave to issue a proceeding following a direction of Justice Kirby that the process should not be issued without first obtaining the leave of a Justice pursuant to Order 58 rule 4(3) of the Rules of this Court. 

The proceeding which the applicant seeks leave to issue is an application for a writ of prohibition against a Justice of the Federal Court on the ground that the applicant has in some way been denied a fair hearing by that court.  Mr Mathews alleges that there are earlier defects in proceedings before the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in which allegations of sexual harassment were made against the applicant.  No order of either the Federal Court or the tribunal is produced.  It is not entirely clear from the papers whether any orders have even been made by the Federal Court. 

On the material, no basis for the grant of any relief is shown.  The application for leave is refused.

We will give you a copy of that, Mr Mathews.

MR MATHEWS:   Thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   I will make the other three orders that I have intimated.

MR MATHEWS:   Thank you, your Honour, I appreciate that.  I was wondering, your Honour, they are obviously defects in that request for leave for the issue of proceedings.  I was wondering if I rectify those and make a fresh application, it would be ‑ ‑ ‑

HIS HONOUR:   I cannot advise you on that matter, Mr Mathews.

MR MATHEWS:   Okay, thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   All right, I do not think there is anything further.  We will adjourn the Court.

AT 5.13 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED