FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Mathews v State of Queensland [2014] FCA 574
Citation: Mathews v State of Queensland [2014] FCA 574 Appeal from: Application for leave to appeal: Mathews v State of Queensland [2014] FCA 424 Parties: RUSSELL GORDON HAIG MATHEWS v STATE OF QUEENSLAND File number: QUD 178 of 2014 Judge: DOWSETT J Date of judgment: 12 May 2014 Date of hearing: 12 May 2014 Place: Brisbane Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: No Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 2 Solicitor for the Applicant: The Applicant did not appear Counsel for the Respondent: Mr S Hamlyn‑Harris Solicitor for the Respondent: Crown Law
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
QUD 178 of 2014
BETWEEN: RUSSELL GORDON HAIG MATHEWS
ApplicantAND: STATE OF QUEENSLAND
Respondent
JUDGE:
DOWSETT J
DATE OF ORDER:
12 MAY 2014
WHERE MADE:
BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.the application is dismissed;
2.the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application
Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
QUD 178 of 2014
BETWEEN: RUSSELL GORDON HAIG MATHEWS
ApplicantAND: STATE OF QUEENSLAND
Respondent
JUDGE:
DOWSETT J
DATE:
12 MAY 2014
PLACE:
BRISBANE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
I have previously outlined the history of the matter. I need not do so again. I do not accept that the applicant is entitled to dictate the terms upon which he should be allowed to appear by telephone. The only condition put upon such appearance was that he provide a telephone number. He has apparently refused to do that. He is not here. His application for leave to appeal should be dismissed. The further application for leave to be heard by telephone, without providing a telephone number will also be struck out.
I order that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application for leave to appeal.
I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dowsett. Associate:
Dated: 3 June 2014
- AGLC
- Mathews v State of Queensland [2014] FCA 574
- Case
- [2014] FCA 574
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the decision of the respondent was unreasonable, as defined by the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the decision was based on an error of law or if the respondent had failed to consider a relevant factor or had given undue weight to an irrelevant factor. The court also needed to consider if the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have made it.
The court found that the respondent's decision was not unreasonable. The court found that the respondent had considered all relevant factors and had made the decision based on a correct interpretation of the relevant legislation. The court also found that the applicant had not demonstrated that the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have made it. The court further found that the applicant had not demonstrated that the decision was based on an error of law or that the respondent had failed to consider a relevant factor or had given undue weight to an irrelevant factor. As such, the court dismissed the application and ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. the application is dismissed;
2. the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.