Peter Markan v Bar Association of Queensland

PETER MARKAN
v
BAR ASSOCIATION OF QUEENSLAND
[2014] HCASL 80 B1/2014; B2/2014

These are applications for special leave to appeal from the orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland (McMurdo P, Mullins and Ann Lyons JJ) dismissing two appeals from the decisions of Atkinson J. The first of those decisions was to refuse to disqualify herself from hearing the respondent's strike-out application. The second decision was to set aside the amended statement of claim filed by the applicant because it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.
The applicant does not have legal representation and his applications fall to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth).
The diffuse complaints in the applicant's written cases do not engage with the Court of Appeal's reasoning. No question of general principle or arguable ground as would justify grants of special leave to appeal are identified. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the conclusions of the Court of Appeal that Atkinson J's refusal to recuse herself was not attended by error1 or that her Honour's assessment that the amended statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action was "unimpeachable"2. If special leave to appeal were granted, these appeals would have no prospect of success.
The applications are dismissed.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal orders dismissing the applications.

V.M. Bell S.J. Gageler
13 May 2014

1 Markan v Bar Association of Queensland [2013] QCA 379 at [20].
2 Markan v Bar Association of Queensland [2013] QCA 379 at [31].

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Peter Markan and the Bar Association of Queensland, are involved in a legal dispute that has reached the High Court of Australia. Markan, appearing pro se, sought special leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland's dismissal of his appeals. The first appeal pertained to the refusal of Atkinson J to recuse herself from hearing a strike-out application by the Bar Association. The second appeal involved the setting aside of Markan's amended statement of claim on the grounds that it did not disclose a reasonable cause of action. The applications were dismissed under rule 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth).

The central legal issues before the court were whether Atkinson J's refusal to recuse herself was erroneous and whether the Court of Appeal correctly concluded that Markan's amended statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action. The court found that Markan's complaints did not engage with the Court of Appeal's reasoning and failed to identify any question of general principle or arguable ground warranting special leave to appeal. The High Court determined that there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the Court of Appeal's conclusions, finding Atkinson J's refusal to recuse herself was not attended by error and that her assessment of the amended statement of claim was unimpeachable.

In dismissing the applications, the High Court noted that if special leave to appeal were granted, the appeals would have no prospect of success. The court directed the Registrar to draw up, sign, and seal orders dismissing the applications in accordance with rule 41.10.5. This decision underscores the importance of clearly identifying arguable grounds and engaging with the reasoning of lower courts when seeking special leave to appeal in the High Court.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established