Re Carmody;

The High Court of Australia, constituted by Gummow, Hayne and Callinan JJ, considered an application for collateral relief in *Re Carmody; Ex parte Glennan*. The applicant, Mr Glennan, sought such relief following the discontinuance of his application for leave to appeal to the High Court.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether collateral relief could be granted pursuant to s 75(v) of the Constitution in circumstances where an application for leave to appeal had been discontinued. Section 75(v) of the Constitution confers original jurisdiction on the High Court in matters concerning writs of mandamus, prohibition, injunction, and prohibition directed to officers of the Commonwealth.

The Court reasoned that the jurisdiction conferred by s 75(v) is not a general appellate jurisdiction, nor is it a jurisdiction that can be invoked to circumvent the requirements of the High Court's appellate jurisdiction. The discontinuance of the application for leave to appeal meant that the Court was not seized of an appeal, and therefore, the applicant could not rely on s 75(v) to obtain relief that would otherwise have been available through the appellate process. The Court applied the principle that constitutional jurisdiction is not to be used as a substitute for other established avenues of appeal or review.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the applicant's notices of motion and the application itself, ordering that the applicant pay the costs of the proceedings.