FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Roberts-Smith v Roberts [2022] FCA 524
Continue reading Roberts-Smith v Roberts
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Roberts-Smith v Roberts [2022] FCA 524
- Case
- [2022] FCA 524
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Roberts-Smith v Roberts, Mr Roberts-Smith sought leave to appeal the dismissal of his further interlocutory applications by the primary judge. The primary judge had dismissed Mr Roberts-Smith's applications to examine Ms Roberts and to join additional parties to the proceeding. The leave application was heard by a single judge of the Federal Court of Australia, who found that the application should be dismissed. Ms Roberts opposed the grant of leave, while neither party submitted that the application should be referred to a Full Court. The applicant must establish that the decision in question is attended with sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration by the Full Court and that substantial injustice would result if leave were refused, supposing the decision to be wrong. The applicant must demonstrate both criteria are satisfied, and they are related and should not be considered in isolation. The single judge found that the decision was not attended with sufficient doubt, and no substantial injustice would result if leave were refused. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
The Federal Court of Australia considered the principles for granting leave to appeal, which require the applicant to demonstrate that the decision in question is attended with sufficient doubt and that substantial injustice would result if leave were refused, supposing the decision to be wrong. The single judge found that the decision in question was not attended with sufficient doubt, and no substantial injustice would result if leave were refused. The single judge found that the primary judge had properly considered the evidence and had made findings that were open to him. The single judge also found that the proposed joinder application was speculative and that there was no basis for disbelieving Ms Roberts's evidence that she had not provided Ms Scott and Mr Pill, or anyone else, with access to Mr Roberts-Smith's email account. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs.
The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and ordered the applicant to pay the respondents' costs. The single judge found that the decision in question was not attended with sufficient doubt and that no substantial injustice would result if leave were refused. The single judge also found that the primary judge had properly considered the evidence and had made findings that were open to him. The court held that the two criteria for granting leave to appeal are cumulative and related, and that both must ordinarily be made out. The court found that the decision was not attended with sufficient doubt, and no substantial injustice would result if leave were refused. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The court's decision was based on a thorough consideration of the evidence and the principles for granting leave to appeal. The outcome was consistent with the law and the facts of the case, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs.
The Federal Court of Australia considered the principles for granting leave to appeal, which require the applicant to demonstrate that the decision in question is attended with sufficient doubt and that substantial injustice would result if leave were refused, supposing the decision to be wrong. The single judge found that the decision in question was not attended with sufficient doubt, and no substantial injustice would result if leave were refused. The single judge found that the primary judge had properly considered the evidence and had made findings that were open to him. The single judge also found that the proposed joinder application was speculative and that there was no basis for disbelieving Ms Roberts's evidence that she had not provided Ms Scott and Mr Pill, or anyone else, with access to Mr Roberts-Smith's email account. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs.
The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and ordered the applicant to pay the respondents' costs. The single judge found that the decision in question was not attended with sufficient doubt and that no substantial injustice would result if leave were refused. The single judge also found that the primary judge had properly considered the evidence and had made findings that were open to him. The court held that the two criteria for granting leave to appeal are cumulative and related, and that both must ordinarily be made out. The court found that the decision was not attended with sufficient doubt, and no substantial injustice would result if leave were refused. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The court's decision was based on a thorough consideration of the evidence and the principles for granting leave to appeal. The outcome was consistent with the law and the facts of the case, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application for leave to appeal dated 7 February 2022 be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the respondents’ costs.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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
The primary judge dismissed the further interlocutory applications: Roberts-Smith v Roberts [2022] FCA 18 (Judgment). In relation to the application to examine Ms Roberts, the primary judge found, in summary: that Ms Roberts had “overall provided full and frank responses to multiple assertions by Mr Roberts-Smith” concerning her alleged non-compliance, or deficient compliance, with the June interlocutory orders (Judgment at [136]); that Mr Roberts-Smith’s “litany of complaints” provided no “proper basis” for any concern that Ms Roberts had “concealed the true position” (Judgment at [141]); and that “[n]o sufficient basis ha[d] been established for the examination of Ms Roberts on the limited question of compliance with the … orders”: Judgment at [142]. In relation to the joinder application, the primary judge considered that the “thrust” of Mr Roberts-Smith’s case for the proposed joinder was that it could be inferred from the evidence adduced by him that Ms Roberts must have provided information to Ms Scott and Mr Pill to enable them to access Mr Roberts-Smith’s email account: Judgment at [145]. His Honour held, however, that there was no basis for disbelieving Ms Roberts’s evidence that she had not provided Ms Scott and Mr Pill, or anyone else, with access to Mr Roberts-Smith’s email account and that the basis for the joinder application accordingly “falls away”: Judgment at [145]-[146]. Mr Roberts-Smith filed an application for leave to appeal the primary judge’s dismissal of the further interlocutory applications. The leave application was listed before a single judge of the Court to determine whether leave should be granted or refused, or whether a direction should be made that the application be heard and determined by a Full Court: see s 25(2)(a) and (e) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (FCA Act). Ms Roberts opposed the grant of leave. Neither party submitted that a direction should be made that the application be heard and determined by a Full Court. Mr Roberts-Smith’s application for leave to appeal should be dismissed with costs for the reasons that follow.LEAVE TO APPEAL – RELEVANT PRINCIPLES An applicant for leave to appeal must generally demonstrate: first, that the decision in question is “attended with sufficient doubt to warrant its being reconsidered by the Full Court”; and second, that “substantial injustice would result if leave were refused, supposing the decision to be wrong”: Re Décor Corporation Pty Ltd and Rian Tooling Industries Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397; [1991] FCA 844 at 398 (Sheppard, Burchett and Heerey JJ); Advanced Holdings Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (2020) 281 FCR 149; [2020] FCAFC 157 at [35] (Steward J, with Allsop CJ and Bromwich J agreeing); Davidson v Official Receiver [2021] FCAFC 73 at [15] (Allsop CJ, Markovic and Anastassiou JJ). The two criteria are cumulative and both must ordinarily be made out: Rawson Finances Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2010] FCAFC 139 at [4]-[5] (Ryan, Stone and Jagot JJ); Ah-Chee v Stuart [2019] FCAFC 165 at [12] (Reeves, Griffiths and Charlesworth JJ). They are also related and should not be divided into “separate compartments”: Ah-Chee at [12]; Cabcharge Australia Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2010] FCAFC 111 at [20] (Kenny, Tracey and Middleton JJ).
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.