Quall v Northern Territory of Australia

[2010] FCA 417

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Quall v Northern Territory of Australia [2010] FCA 417

Citation:	Quall v Northern Territory of Australia [2010] FCA 417
Parties:	KEVIN (TIBBY) QUALL ON BEHALF OF THE DANGALABA CLAN (DANGALABA 10 - HOWARD SPRINGS TQ 10) v NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA & OTHERS
File number:	NTD 6026 of 1998
Judge:	MANSFIELD J
Date of judgment:	21 April 2010
Date of hearing:	21 April 2010
Place:	Darwin
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	8
Counsel for the Applicant:	The applicant did not appear
Counsel for the First Respondent:	M Storey
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Solicitor for the Northern Territory
Counsel for the Second Respondent:	M Hawkins
Solicitor for the Second Respondent:	Commonwealth of Australia
Counsel for Telstra Corporation Limited:	P McCormack
Respondent Party:	V Collins in person

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NORTHERN TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	NTD 6026 of 1998

BETWEEN:	KEVIN (TIBBY) QUALL ON BEHALF OF THE DANGALABA CLAN (DANGALABA 10 - HOWARD SPRINGS TQ 10) Applicants
AND:	NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA & OTHERS Respondents

JUDGE:	MANSFIELD J
DATE:	21 APRIL 2010
PLACE:	DARWIN

REASONS FOR RULING

1. Vincent Collins, who is a respondent party to the Howard Springs application (NTD 6026 of 1998), one of the matters called on today under the generic group of the Quall applications, has applied orally for an order that he be given access to the affidavit of John S. Hicks, apparently filed in a different matter in this Court which he said was matter DG 8 of 1996.

2. He made no formal application by document. Nor has he supported what he wanted to say today by affidavit.  The material he has referred to is obviously part of quite an extensive background to his application. His submissions extend clearly beyond issues arising in the Howard Springs application.

3. Mr Collins has acknowledged that he cannot use his respondent status as a party to the application for some extraneous purpose.  Such an extraneous purpose would be to acquire information not for use in the Howard Springs application but for use in a different proceeding.  He says that the material contained in the affidavit, if procured, will assist Mr Quall as the applicant in prosecuting his claim in the Howard Springs application.

4. At present I refuse his application.  I do so for the following reasons. 

5. Mr Quall himself, who is the applicant in the Howard Springs application, has not attended today, does not himself seek that material, and has not indicated that he supports Mr Collins in seeking that material apparently on his behalf. 

6. More importantly, in my view it is inappropriate to consider the application while Mr Quall’s claims, including the Howard Springs application, stand as claims dismissed by this Court, subject to them being reinstated following Mr Quall’s present application to the High Court for special leave to appeal from their dismissal. There would be no real purpose served in terms of benefitting Mr Quall in the Howard Springs application, given its present status, unless and until the High Court hears, and favourably determines, his application for special leave to appeal and, if leave is granted, the appeal.

7. Accordingly, the application is presently refused.

8. I will give leave to Mr Collins, as a respondent party in the Howard Springs application, to renew the application in the event that the High Court gives Mr Quall special leave to appeal from the decisions of this Court, both at first instance and on appeal, that the Howard Springs application should be dismissed, and in the event that the High Court then hears the appeal and Mr Quall is successful in that appeal in having that application reinstated so that it is re-enlivened.

I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Ruling herein of the Honourable Justice Mansfield.

Associate:

Dated:       21 April 2010