Legal Research
Cases
Re Attorney-General (Cth); Ex parte Skyring

Re Attorney-General (Cth); Ex parte Skyring

Link copied

Case Copied 26 February 1996 9 min read

Contents

On this page

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KIRBY J

RE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA AND ANOR;

26 February 1996

High Court Procedure—Constitutional Law

High Court procedure—O 63 r 6 of the High Court Rules—Vexatious litigant—Application for leave to commence proceedings following order made under O 63 r 6—Leave refused. Constitutional Law—Power of Commonwealth Parliament to legislate with respect to "Legal tender"—Constitution, ss 51 (xii), xiii), whether paper money legal tender in Australia—Argument untenable—Leave to commence proceedings refused.

Headnote

Hearing

SYDNEY
#DATE 26:2:1996

The Applicant appeared in person

Orders

In each Matter
Application for leave to commence proceedings refused.

Decision

KIRBY J In order to understand the present proceedings it is necessary to read four decisions of this Court. The first is Re Skyring's Application (No 2) (1). The second is an unreported decision of a Full Court of this Court, Justices Mason, Wilson, Brennan and Dawson of 9 July 1985 on appeal from the first decision titled In the matter of an Application by Alan George Skyring. The third is the decision of Justice Toohey in Jones v Skyring (2). An application was brought for leave to appeal against that decision. It was rejected by the Court in an unreported decision of 1 July 1993. The fourth is Re Skyring (3), a decision of Justice Dawson.

2. Justice Toohey, in his 1992 decision, made an order under O 63 r 6 of the High Court Rules that, without leave of the Court or of a Justice of the Court, Mr Skyring should not be permitted to commence further proceedings in the Court. Justice Dawson, in his 1994 decision, declined to give such leave in the proceedings then brought before him. I am asked now to give leave for the commencement of proceedings in three matters.

3. Apart from the above proceedings, there has also been a great deal of litigation in the Federal Court of Australia, in the Court of Appeal of Queensland, in the trial division of the Supreme Court of Queensland, and in the District Court of Queensland before at least two judges of that last mentioned court, Judges Pratt and McMurdo. The full litigation in Queensland need not be described. It is sufficient to note that on 12 May 1994 the Court of Appeal of Queensland refused an extension of time within which Mr Skyring could appeal against an order of Justice Dowsett of the Supreme Court of Queensland in chambers, striking out an action in the Supreme Court of Queensland designed, in effect, to challenge the note issue of Australian currency. The Court of Appeal held that the appeal had no prospects of success and that the extension necessary for its prosecution should be refused.

4. For some years Mr Skyring, with obvious sincerity, has been agitating an opinion that it is beyond the constitutional power of the Federal Parliament to legislate to make paper money, as distinct from gold, legal tender in this country. He raises, in connection with that challenge, a number of other challenges…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Re Attorney-General (Cth); Ex parte Skyring and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1996] HCA 4
Decision Date: 26 February 1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court, constituted by Kirby J, considered an application by Mr. Skyring for leave to commence proceedings following an order made under High Court Rule 63.6, which deals with vexatious litigants. Mr. Skyring sought to challenge the constitutional validity of Commonwealth legislation concerning legal tender, specifically arguing that paper money was not legal tender in Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether Mr. Skyring should be granted leave to commence proceedings. This required the Court to assess the merits of his proposed constitutional challenge, which centred on the interpretation of sections 51(xii) and 51(xiii) of the Australian Constitution, relating to the Commonwealth Parliament's power to legislate with respect to coinage and currency, and legal tender.

Kirby J found the argument that paper money was not legal tender in Australia to be untenable. His Honour reasoned that the concept of legal tender in Australia had evolved and that Commonwealth legislation had established paper currency as legal tender. Consequently, the proposed constitutional challenge lacked sufficient merit to warrant granting leave to commence proceedings, particularly in light of the existing order designating Mr. Skyring as a vexatious litigant. The application for leave to commence proceedings was refused.

Orders