Quach, In the matter of an application for leave to issue a proceeding

[2016] HCATrans 104

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S78 of 2016

No S79 of 2016
In the matter of -
an application by MICHAEL VAN THANH QUACH for leave to issue a proceeding

NETTLE J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON MONDAY, 9 MAY 2016, AT 4.24 PM

HIS HONOUR: On 13 August 2015, the High Court, constituted by Bell and Gageler JJ, dismissed two applications for special leave to appeal from the judgment and orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales constituted by Basten and Ward JJA and Sackville AJA given on 24 March 2015 in proceedings 2015/48269 and 2015/67618 (“the Court of Appeal judgment”).

Subsequently the applicant sought to file two further applications for special leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal judgment (“the second applications”). But, on 7 March 2016, however, Gordon J directed the Registrar, pursuant to r 6.07.2 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), to refuse to issue or file the second applications. The applicant now seeks leave, pursuant to rr 6.07.2 and 6.07.3 of the Rules, for the Registrar to issue or file the second applications.

The second applications for special leave to appeal are, ex facie, frivolous, vexatious and outside the jurisdiction of the Court. Accordingly, the applications for leave are refused.

AT 4.26 PM THE MATTERS WERE CONCLUDED

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application by Michael Van Thanh Quach for leave to issue further proceedings in the High Court of Australia. The applicant had previously had two applications for special leave to appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales dismissed by Bell and Gageler JJ on 13 August 2015. The applicant then sought to file two further applications for special leave to appeal from the same judgment, which the Registrar, pursuant to rule 6.07.2 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), had refused to issue or file. The current application sought leave for the Registrar to issue or file these second applications.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether to grant the applicant leave for the Registrar to issue or file the second applications for special leave to appeal. This required the Court to consider the nature of the second applications and whether they met the threshold for being issued or filed.

The Court determined that the second applications for special leave to appeal were, on their face, frivolous, vexatious, and outside the jurisdiction of the High Court. Applying this assessment, the Court refused the applicant's request for leave for the Registrar to issue or file the second applications.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established