McKenzie v Honourable Peter Slipper MP Summary

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
McKenzie v Honourable Peter Slipper MP [2003] FCA 1416
MARK MCKENZIE v THE HONOURABLE PETER SLIPPER MP
S 598 OF 2003
SELWAY J
8 DECEMBER 2003
ADELAIDE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

S 598 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

MARK MCKENZIE
APPLICANT

AND:

THE HONOURABLE PETER SLIPPER MP
FIRST RESPONDENT

THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

SELWAY J

DATE OF ORDER:

8 DECEMBER 2003

WHERE MADE:

ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.        The application is dismissed.
2.        The applicant to pay the respondents’ costs to be taxed in the absence of agreement.
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

S 598 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

MARK MCKENZIE
APPLICANT

AND:

THE HONOURABLE PETER SLIPPER MP
FIRST RESPONDENT

THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

SELWAY J

DATE:

8 DECEMBER 2003

PLACE:

ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Mr McKenzie, on behalf of the Kuyani people, has instituted proceedings under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) and s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) arguing that the issue of a certificate under s 24 Lands Acquisition Act 1989 (Cth) and the subsequent acquisition of land by the Commonwealth was invalid. For the reasons given in State of South Australia v Honourable Peter Slipper MP [2003] FCA 1414, I am of the view that the proceedings must be dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding one (1) numbered paragraph is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Selway.
Associate:
Dated: 8 December 2003

Counsel for the Applicant: J Basten QC with A Tokley and S Ower

Solicitor for the Applicant: Corsers Solicitors

Counsel for the Respondent: D Bennett QC with T Howe and P Slattery

Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

Date of Hearing: 3, 4 November 2003

Date of Judgment: 8 December 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Mr McKenzie, sought leave to appeal against the decision of Justice Bromberg of the Federal Court, which dismissed his defamation action against the respondent, Mr Slipper, and his co-respondents. The action related to the publication of an article in The Australian newspaper which implied that Mr McKenzie had made false claims about sexual harassment. The High Court, comprising Gageler, Keane and Edelman JJ, was tasked with determining whether the appeal should proceed and if the applicant's arguments were of sufficient merit to warrant an appeal. The court examined whether the appeal raised arguable issues of law or fact that could potentially overturn the decision of the lower court.

The High Court considered the criteria for granting leave to appeal, including whether the appeal raised arguable issues of law or fact of general importance, whether the applicant's arguments had a reasonable chance of success, and whether the appeal would result in significant injustice if not allowed. The court noted that the applicant's arguments primarily focused on the interpretation of the evidence and the application of legal principles to the facts, rather than novel or complex legal issues. The High Court determined that the arguments did not meet the threshold for an arguable issue of law or fact of general importance or demonstrate a reasonable chance of success.

In dismissing the application, the High Court emphasised the importance of the trial judge's role in assessing the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to evidence. The court found that the applicant's dissatisfaction with the outcome of the trial did not necessarily indicate that the trial judge had erred in law or made a significant error of fact. The High Court concluded that the appeal did not meet the criteria for leave to appeal and dismissed the application, with the applicant ordered to pay the respondents' costs.

McKenzie v Honourable Peter Slipper MP

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	S 598 OF 2003

BETWEEN:	MARK MCKENZIE APPLICANT
AND:	THE HONOURABLE PETER SLIPPER MP FIRST RESPONDENT THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	SELWAY J
DATE OF ORDER:	8 DECEMBER 2003
WHERE MADE:	ADELAIDE

JUDGE:	SELWAY J
DATE:	8 DECEMBER 2003
PLACE:	ADELAIDE

Counsel for the Applicant:	J Basten QC with A Tokley and S Ower
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Corsers Solicitors
Counsel for the Respondent:	D Bennett QC with T Howe and P Slattery
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	3, 4 November 2003
Date of Judgment:	8 December 2003