Morison v State Transit Authority of New South Wales

[1991] HCATrans 280

~

~ ,~·:r

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Sydney No Sl47 of 1990

B e t w e e n -

ANDREW WILLIAM MORISON

Applicant

and

STATE TRANSIT AUTHORITY OF NEW

SOUTH WALES

Respondent

Application for special leave

to appeal

BRENNAN J
DAWSON J

TOOHEY J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 4 OCTOBER 1991, AT 4.27 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

Morison 1 4/10/91

MR P.R. STERNBURG:  May it please the Court, I appear for

the respondent. (instructed by Kennedy & Co)

BRENNAN J: Is Mr Morison present?

MR A.W. MORISON:  Yes, Your Honour.

BRENNAN J:  Come and sit down, Mr Morison. You are

Mr Morison, are you?

MR MORISON:	Yes, I am the applicant.
BRENNAN J:	And you are applying for leave to appear in

person?

MR MORISON:  I am applying for special leave to appear, yes,

in person, that is right. But I am applying for

special leave to appeal to the High Court.

BRENNAN J: Yes. Under amended Rules of Court, Mr Morison,

this Court will hear your application for leave to

appear in person but why should we grant you leave

to appear in person in a matter which you are

seeking special leave to appeal?

MR MORISON: Well, I have stated some grounds in the

application book, Your Honour.	The motions are in
the book anyway.	I believe you have the seven
copies?

BRENNAN J: Yes.

MR MORISON:  The application book for the hearing of the notice the motion, are they numbered on the pages?

BRENNAN J: Yes.

MR MORISON:  Okay then. Well, in the affidavit anyway, the

first affidavit of six pages - it is fairly

lengthy. There is a fair amount of law involved in

this application and there are grounds stated.

First of all, a brief summary of the particular
dispute.	You see, this is an employment dispute

and I was employed by the respondent as a bus

driver.

DAWSON J:	We have read all the material, Mr Morison.
MR MORISON:	Anyway, the grounds basically are - is the

first ground, that the lower court, the New South

Wales Court of Appeal was biased in that they had a

large vested interest in dismissing my notice of

motion and the notice of appeal to the Court of

Appeal, and they denied me natural justice.

So, even though these grounds may be common

law grounds but there are grounds stated in the

Morison 2 4/10/91

High Court Rules for an appeal to the High Court and the most important ground there, I believe, is

that, for this particular case, the original

jurisdiction is in the High Court of Australia

because I was employed under a federal award which,

of course, has the force of the law in the Federal

Parliament. I was dismissed from my employment. I

appealed to the statutory board as stated under

section 33 - punishment, in my award. I was

entitled to appeal to the board and I was suspended

from employment for six months.

Now, after the six-month suspension expired, the respondent refused to employ me and I lodged a

complaint under the legislation at the time to the
Arbitration Inspectorate. So, that decision is a
decision of a federal officer and under the

Australian Constitution, section 75 - I believe you

have a copy of the legislation which was printed by

the library?

DAWSON J: The Constitution? The material?

MR MORISON:  Yes, the material, yes. I have a list of all

the legislation required for the application

and - - -

DAWSON J: Yes, we have that.

MR MORISON: So, basically, the original jurisdiction is in

the High Court under the Australian Constitution

Act, you see, and I believe therefore that the

application should be allowed, you see. I believe

I have some good grounds to ask for a mandamus to

overturn the decision in the lower court and

provide me with my - the payment of wages and a

compliance of the award, because I was suspended

for six months.

Now, I totally reject the comments from the

counsel for the respondent in the lower court. In

the conduct of that case the respondent said that
they had complied with the decision.	Now, that is

not true because I was reinstated by the board at

the appeal and the appeal was mitigated.	I have a
copy of the appeal right here.	I can hand it up

and show the Judges. Unfortunately, there are no exhibits in this application book. I did ask for

them to be put in there. I wanted a copy of the

appeals board, the New South Wales Transport

Appeals Board, which is a statutory authority of

the New South Wales Government - and I think I

should have put in the application book a copy of

the award so we could see what we are talking

about. The award is a contract of employment and

it is signed in the Federal Court and I suppose

there may have been a possibility that I could have

Morison 3 4/10/91

taken legal action in the Federal Court to force a compliance with the award. However, I believe the

legislation was changed at a certain time and I

have made comments in this application book that

politicians and governments have interfered with my

employment. That is, that they have watched me,

invaded my privacy. Apparently they have taken an

interest in my background, and there are records in

the government - some of the government offices

which give the respondent and the New South Wales
Government the opportunity to do this, you see.

They can look at these records and they can say

that, "Here, with this man in his employment

receiving a payment of a wage and saving some

money - with this man in this job, we have a

problem. He has a claim against our government.

So, we have to dismiss him." So, what do they do?

They unlawfully dismissed me from my employment.

DAWSON J: These are all matters you have set out in the

affidavit and the other material, are they not?

MR MORISON:  Yes, that is right, yes.

DAWSON J: Well, is there anything - because we have read

that, you see, Mr Morison.

MR MORISON; Well, the original jurisdiction in the High

Court, that is a ground for an application to the

High Court. Under that Act - - -

DAWSON J: Yes. Now, is there anything that you wish to add

to the material?

MR MORISON:  Yes. Well, I am going through the grounds for

this application.

DAWSON J: All right.

MR MORISON:	These are also reasons, of course - - -
BRENNAN J: Well, we are going through the grounds for them

but, before you do so, you must obtain leave to

appear to present your application and the reason

for that is this, Mr Morison: this Court is a

Court concerned with appeals principally on
questions of law. Ordinarily, we do not hear

people in applications before us unless they have

legal qualifications because the risk is that those

who appear without legal qualifications may not

understand the principles of law with which they
are concerned and with which we are concerned.

Now, we are not going to hear you just reading out a series of grounds. Unless you can point to

some reason why you should be given leave to appeal

and can demonstrate in some way a capacity to

Morison 4 4/10/91

identify issues of law for this Court's

consideration, that will be the end of the matter.

MR MORISON:  Yes, well, I can. I can do that. There is

another ground which is stated in the High Court

Rules and that is that this legal dispute is a very

important legal dispute because I had a claim and I

believe it has a profound effect upon the

law-making processes. I want to prosecute my claim

and I cannot do that unless, of course, I receive

my wages.	I may have to travel overseas and
investigate my claim overseas.	I may have to go
over to Britain.

Now, I believe it is in the public interest

that this case should go to the High Court of

Australia so, you know, basically, I can get on

with my business and the government can get on with

their business and I believe it is a very important

claim. I do not want to talk about it in an open court. Obviously, there could be a lot of damage

done. But I have seen some evidence and it appears

as though that even - as this case is to be

considered on a question of law, naturally, of
course, that is a good system in the High Court,

but there is a possibility that some of these laws

may be invalid. I have discovered some evidence

and I, as a citizen of Australia and also a subject

of the Crown, wish to pursue my claim so that I can

investigate further some of these allegations, that

some of these laws were the laws assented to by the

British Government, the monarch, may be invalid, and I have seen some evidence of that.

But apart from all that, there is another

ground stated in the High Court Rules which is

stated that if an applicant to the High Court has

to go through further costly and serious legal

litigation, well then, the High Court, if they can

hear the dispute and resolve the legal matter, well

then, it is a simple or it is a better proposition

than to ask a litigant to go back to a court, a

State government court which, you know, obviously

could be biased again and, you know, obviously the

delay involved in litigation could be very costly.

So, what I am presenting to the High Court is

a submission that the grounds stated in the High

Court Rules are there for this application.	I
believe that the decision of the Commonwealth

officer can be overlooked because I believe it is an

obvious award breach in that after the six-months
suspension expired I was not re-employed.

Now, the respondent in the lower court said

that they had complied with the decision but that
is not true because, as we all know, in government

Morison 4/10/91

employment, because it is a legal matter -

obviously, if somebody is suspended for six months

from their duties, well then, they should be

reinstated - they are reinstated at the appeals

board. And it would not be a legal proposition for

someone to appeal to an appeals board and the

chairman of the appeals board would make a

statement to the effect, as in this case they may

have, that "In six months time I will make the

decision that the applicant" or "the appellant will

go back to work." Basically, that is what the

chairman has done in this particular case. He has

divested his powers and made a statement saying

that I can go back to work in six months time and

that, "I am not going to make a firm decision about

this particular case."

So, the right of appeal is confirmed by an Act

of Parliament put through in 1981 and it is called

the Human Rights Commission Act and it is

schedule 1: Part 14, I believe, in the schedule, in

the International Covenant on Civil and Political

Rights. And in that piece of legislation it does

state that an appellant or a litigant involved in a

legal dispute - and it does not say he has a

barrister or that he has a case, even, for that matter, but it does say in that treaty with the

United Nations that the litigant can appeal to a competent and independent court established at law,

you see. So, basically, I would like to submit

that the Court of Appeal - three judges of the

Court of Appeal, even though the judges are very

learned and, obviously, very competent, but they

may not fulfill that treaty with the United

Nations.

The Australian Constitution does say in

section 75 the original jurisdiction is in the

High Court for a dispute or for the treaty - those

rules - regulations of the United Nations, and we

all know the United Nations does a good job around

the world trying to implement peace and law

enforcement. So, the Australian government has

signed a treaty. It says in the charter that a

litigant has a right of appeal to an independent

and competent court and I believe that I would have

to appeal to the High Court to receive justice and

basically I believe - that is what the courts and

litigation are about. They are not a place where

someone can make a living or earn an income, you

know. Obviously, a court is set up to consider the

laws of the Commonwealth of Australia, primarily,

and the State laws of New South Wales if they do

not conflict with the federal laws.

Apparently there is a conflict of laws between

the State legislation put through by the New South

Morison 6 4/10/91

Wales Parliament and section 109 of the Australian

Constitution. There are Acts in the State Acts

which say that I, as an appellant, should have to

appeal to the commissioner, you know, or that there
is other law involving legislation as far as - I

believe, the commissioner can employ whoever he

chooses.

BRENNAN J: All right, Mr Morison, now, you can have a

couple more minutes.

MR MORISON: Okay. Well, anyway, I have some further

photocopies of legislation and point of law

involving outrageous decisions. These are High

Court authorities, if you would like to look at

them. I have a list - they are written down on a

list I have and I will just read through the list.

There you are, I have been only talking for

15 minutes. I believe other applicants have spoken

for an hour, have they not?

BRENNAN J:  Mr Morison, you are a person appearing without a

right to appear. If you wish to have another

couple of minutes, you can have it.

MR MORISON: With all due respect, Your Honour, that is not

quite true, is it?

BRENNAN J:  Mr Morison, if you wish to have a couple of

minutes to speak, you can have them.	If you do not
wish to have them, then sit down now.

MR MORISON:  Okay. Anyway, would you like to see this

legislation and authorities? I may as well hand it

up, I have copied it. I spent $20. They are

authorities and they involve - they are High Court
authorities and obviously, you do not - some are

High Court, some are New South Wales, and State

legislation, if the Court would like to examine the

relevant legislation even though it has been

changed.	I would like to argue to the Court that
the legislation at the time of the dismissal and at

the appeal - the law should be considered

retrospective.	The law at that particular time
should be considered by the Court.	I believe that
that would be a fair proposition.	And here is the

federal legislation as well. Okay? So, if I could

just talk for another five minutes?

BRENNAN J:  No, two, Mr Morison.

MR MORISON: Anyway, here we are. Yes, you see, apparently

there were a lot of common law grounds and a judge

in the supreme court which made the decision which

was appealed against to the three justices. He

gave an order that I would be entitled to form a

list of grounds in that court and I did put point

Morison 7 4/10/91

of law and quite a considerable amount of list of

grounds involving legislation concerning race

discrimination. And we have all heard race

discrimination spoken of in the news and I believe

that I was a victim of a breach of the federal law.

Part 2, section 9, section 10, section 12,

involving housing services and trade unions; employment. Section 17 says in the Act, the federal Act, it is still valid, they are unlawful

acts to engage in race discrimination against an

employee, and I believe my ancestors were of ethnic

origin.

It is not possible for people to search out

their family record and go back too far but it is

fairly obvious that I may be of appearance, you

know, ethnic origin. I will not say anything more

than that because it is quite private to talk in an

open court. But apart from that, there is point of
law involving inadequate assessment of damages and

it is volume 1, page 259 of the Australian Digest.

BRENNAN J:  I think we have heard enough, Mr Morison.

MR MORISON: Okay. Anyway, basically, that is the - there

is point of law in the High Court precedents -

authorities to support this application involving

the damages in the lower court and I believe I

should have received the payment of wages by the

lower court. It is fairly obvious.	I was
suspended for six months.	I have a copy of the
decision right here.	I can show the High Court the
decision of the board.

BRENNAN J:	Mr Morison, we have heard enough.
MR MORISON:	Okay.
BRENNAN J:	We need not trouble you, Mr Sternburg.
MR STERNBURG:

BRENNAN J: There is no reason to give the applicant leave May it please the Court.

to appear in person to apply for special leave to

appeal. We have read the papers and there is

nothing in them which justifies the grant of

special leave to appeal.

Leave to appear is refused. Absent an

application which leads to the grant of special

leave to appeal, special leave is refused.

AT 4.48 PM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED SINE DIE

Morison 8 4/10/91