Mees v Kemp & Anor

[2005] HCATrans 315

[2005] HCATrans 315

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Melbourne  No M19 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

PAUL ANDREW MEES

Applicant

and

DAVID KEMP (IN HIS CAPACITY AS MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE)

First Respondent

SOUTHERN AND EASTERN INTEGRATED TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

Second Respondent

Pronouncement of orders

HAYNE J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT MELBOURNE ON THURSDAY, 12 MAY 2005, AT 9.32 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

HIS HONOUR:   In this matter the parties have been informed that they need not attend. 

On 11 February 2005 the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia dismissed an appeal brought by Dr P.A. Mees against orders made by a single judge of the Federal Court, Justice Weinberg, dismissing Dr Mees’ application for judicial review of a decision of the first‑named respondent in his capacity as Minister for the Environment and Heritage.  On 11 March 2005 Dr Mees filed an application for special leave to appeal against the orders made by the Full Court of the Federal Court. 

Dr Mees is an unrepresented applicant, as that expression is defined in rule 40.01 of the High Court Rules 2004. Accordingly, rule 41.10 of those Rules is engaged and he was obliged under rule 41.10.3 to file a written case within 28 days of his filing his application for special leave to appeal. Where an unrepresented applicant does not file a written case within 28 days of the filing of the application, the application is deemed to be abandoned unless either before or after the expiration of that period the Court or a Justice otherwise orders or directs: see rule 41.10.4.

Dr Mees did not file his written case within the time fixed by the Rules.  He attempted to do so on the day after the period for filing his written case had expired.  It was then correctly pointed out to him that his application had by then been deemed to be abandoned.  Dr Mees now seeks an order that his application not be deemed to have been abandoned and for such other order as is thought fit.  The second respondent to the application for special leave consents to the making of that order.  The first respondent does not oppose it being made.  In my opinion, this is a proper case in which to grant the application and I therefore order: 

1.        The applicant has until 4.00 pm, 19 May 2005 to file a draft notice of appeal and written case in support of his application for special leave to appeal to this Court;

2.        If, on or before 4.00 pm, 19 May 2005, the applicant files a draft notice of appeal and written case in support of his application for special leave to appeal, his application is not to be deemed to have been abandoned;

3.        The costs of this application are in any event to be paid or borne by the applicant. 

AT 9.35 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED