Peter Shumack v Australian Federal Police Commissioner and Australian Federal Police Deputy Firearms Registrar

Peter Shumack appealed to the Australian Capital Territory Court of Appeal against an interlocutory decision of the Master of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The Master had struck out Mr Shumack's amended statement of claim on the grounds that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action. Mr Shumack had been representing himself throughout these proceedings, which involved a range of grievances against officers of the ACT Emergency Services and the Australian Federal Police, stemming from an employment dispute in 1997 and including allegations of conspiracy and victimisation.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether an appeal from an interlocutory decision of the Master striking out a statement of claim lay to the Court of Appeal or to a single judge of the Supreme Court. A secondary issue, raised by the respondents, was whether the notice of appeal itself was competent, in that its grounds disclosed a reasonable cause of action or demonstrated an error of law by the Master.

The Court of Appeal determined that an order summarily dismissing proceedings for disclosing no reasonable cause of action is an interlocutory decision. Citing established authority, the Court held that under the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), appeals from interlocutory decisions of the Master lie to a single judge of the Supreme Court, not the Court of Appeal. Consequently, the appeal was struck out as incompetent. The Court also noted that, even if the appeal had been brought in the correct forum, the grounds of appeal did not demonstrate an error of law by the Master, but rather raised subsequent grievances, and would likely have been unsuccessful.

The Court ordered that the notice of appeal be struck out as incompetent and that Mr Shumack pay the respondents' costs. The Court's reasons were delivered extemporaneously.