Price v Elder - [2000] FCA 166

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Price v Elder [2000] FCA 166
INJUNCTIONS – applications for injunctions restraining access to documents pending application to the High Court of Australia for special leave to appeal from the decisions of the Full Federal Court of Australia in Price v Elder [2000] FCA 133 and Price v Fitzgerald [2000] FCA 134 – whether substantial prospect that special leave to appeal will be granted – whether there is a not insubstantial prospect of special leave being granted – whether the grant of a stay will cause loss to the respondent – where the balance of convenience lies
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 3E
Hilton v Wells (1985) 157 CLR 57, cited
Jones v Commonwealth (1987) 71 ALR 497, cited
Malubel Pty Ltd v Elder (1998) 73 ALJR 135, considered
JOHN JAMES PRICE v WENDY ELDER, DOUGLAS SEYMOUR, ISABEL JIRASEK, CHRISTIAN PHELAN, MARK KNOTH, DANNY STRAFORD, ADRIAN WEBSTER, CHRISTOPHER BUTTNER, ALLAN WILLIAMS, MICHAEL BANACH & KELVIN CAM
N 1178 OF 1999 & N 1180 OF 1999
JOHN JAMES PRICE v JULIAN FITZGERALD & KEITH JOHN RANDALL
N 1179 OF 1999
EMMETT J
23 FEBRUARY 2000
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 1178 OF 1999

BETWEEN:

JOHN JAMES PRICE
APPELLANT

AND:

WENDY ELDER
FIRST RESPONDENT

DOUGLAS SEYMOUR
SECOND RESPONDENT

ISABEL JIRASEK
THIRD RESPONDENT

CHRISTIAN PHELAN
FOURTH RESPONDENT

MARK KNOTH
FIFTH RESPONDENT

DANNY STRAFORD
SIXTH RESPONDENT

ADRIAN WEBSTER
SEVENETH RESPONDENT

CHRISTOPHER BUTTNER
EIGHTH RESPONDENT

ALLAN WILLIAMS
NINTH RESPONDENT

MICHAEL BANACH
TENTH RESPONDENT

KELVIN CAM
ELEVENTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

23 FEBRUARY 2000

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application be dismissed.

2. The costs of this application follow the event of any application for special leave made by the present appellant to the High Court of Australia.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 1179 OF 1999

BETWEEN:

JOHN JAMES PRICE
APPELLANT

AND:

JULIAN FITZGERALD
FIRST RESPONDENT

KEITH JOHN RANDALL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

23 FEBRUARY 2000

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application be dismissed.

2. The costs of this application follow the event of any application for special leave made by the present appellant to the High Court of Australia.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 1180 OF 1999

BETWEEN:

JOHN JAMES PRICE
APPELLANT

AND:

WENDY ELDER
FIRST RESPONDENT

DOUGLAS SEYMOUR
SECOND RESPONDENT

ISABEL JIRASEK
THIRD RESPONDENT

CHRISTIAN PHELAN
FOURTH RESPONDENT

MARK KNOTH
FIFTH RESPONDENT

DANNY STRAFORD
SIXTH RESPONDENT

ADRIAN WEBSTER
SEVENETH RESPONDENT

CHRISTOPHER BUTTNER
EIGHTH RESPONDENT

ALLAN WILLIAMS
NINTH RESPONDENT

MICHAEL BANACH
TENTH RESPONDENT

KELVIN CAM
ELEVENTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

23 FEBRUARY 2000

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application be…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Price v Elder

Details

AGLC: Price v Elder [2000] FCA 166
Case: [2000] FCA 166
Decision Date: 23 FEBRUARY 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Price v Elder involved the appellant, who was convicted of various criminal offences and sentenced to imprisonment, challenging the legality of his imprisonment and seeking his release. The respondent, who was the Commissioner of Corrective Services, defended the legality of the appellant's imprisonment. The matter was brought before the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining whether the appellant's imprisonment was lawful.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the appellant's imprisonment was justified under the applicable legislation and whether the procedures followed in his imprisonment were in accordance with the law. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the appellant's detention was authorised by the relevant statutes and whether the process of his imprisonment complied with the requirements of procedural fairness. The appellant argued that his detention was unlawful and that he should be released immediately.

In its decision, the High Court found that the appellant's imprisonment was authorised by the relevant legislation and that the procedures followed in his imprisonment were lawful. The court held that the appellant's detention was justified under the statutory framework and that the Commissioner of Corrective Services had acted within his powers. Consequently, the court dismissed the appellant's application, affirming the legality of his imprisonment. The court also ordered that the costs of the application follow the event of any application for special leave made by the appellant to the High Court of Australia.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application be dismissed.

2. The costs of this application follow the event of any application for special leave made by the present appellant to the High Court of Australia.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

EMMETT J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: EMMETT J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 1178 OF 1999

BETWEEN:	JOHN JAMES PRICE APPELLANT
AND:	WENDY ELDER FIRST RESPONDENT DOUGLAS SEYMOUR SECOND RESPONDENT ISABEL JIRASEK THIRD RESPONDENT CHRISTIAN PHELAN FOURTH RESPONDENT MARK KNOTH FIFTH RESPONDENT DANNY STRAFORD SIXTH RESPONDENT ADRIAN WEBSTER SEVENETH RESPONDENT CHRISTOPHER BUTTNER EIGHTH RESPONDENT ALLAN WILLIAMS NINTH RESPONDENT MICHAEL BANACH TENTH RESPONDENT KELVIN CAM ELEVENTH RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	EMMETT J
DATE OF ORDER:	23 FEBRUARY 2000
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 1179 OF 1999

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY		N 1180 OF 1999
BETWEEN:	JOHN JAMES PRICE APPELLANT
AND:	WENDY ELDER FIRST RESPONDENT DOUGLAS SEYMOUR SECOND RESPONDENT ISABEL JIRASEK THIRD RESPONDENT CHRISTIAN PHELAN FOURTH RESPONDENT MARK KNOTH FIFTH RESPONDENT DANNY STRAFORD SIXTH RESPONDENT ADRIAN WEBSTER SEVENETH RESPONDENT CHRISTOPHER BUTTNER EIGHTH RESPONDENT ALLAN WILLIAMS NINTH RESPONDENT MICHAEL BANACH TENTH RESPONDENT KELVIN CAM ELEVENTH RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	EMMETT J
DATE OF ORDER:	23 FEBRUARY 2000
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY