Peter Markan v Crime and Misconduct Commission

PETER MARKAN
v
CRIME AND MISCONDUCT COMMISSION
[2014] HCASL 120
B17/2014

The applicant commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of Queensland against the respondent. The respondent sought and obtained at first instance (Boddice J) an order for summary judgment with costs. The applicant unsuccessfully appealed to the Court of Appeal (McMurdo P, Gotterson and Morrison JJA) against that order.
The applicant now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court. Because he is unrepresented, his application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004.
There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the Court of Appeal. An appeal to this Court would fail.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

K.M. Hayne
6 August 2014 S.M. Crennan

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Queensland was involved in a legal dispute between Peter Markan, the applicant, and the Crime and Misconduct Commission, the respondent. Markan initiated proceedings against the Commission, but the Commission successfully sought summary judgment and costs in the Supreme Court. Markan's appeal to the Court of Appeal was unsuccessful, and he now seeks special leave to appeal to the High Court. The application is being dealt with under rule 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004 due to Markan's lack of representation. The court was tasked with determining whether there was a valid reason to doubt the correctness of the Court of Appeal's decision, and if the appeal to the High Court would likely succeed.

The central legal issue was whether there was a basis to doubt the Court of Appeal's decision, given the unrepresented nature of Markan's application. The court considered the merits of the appeal and whether it would succeed if heard by the High Court. The focus was on whether the Court of Appeal's decision was correct and whether there were grounds for the High Court to intervene.

The court concluded that there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the Court of Appeal's decision. It found that an appeal to the High Court would likely be unsuccessful. As a result, the court decided to dismiss Markan's application for special leave to appeal. It directed the Registrar to draft, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application, in accordance with rule 41.10.5 of the High Court Rules 2004. The judges Hayne and Crennan, in delivering the judgment, confirmed that the appeal would not proceed further.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established