Rolfe, Ex parte - Re Chief Justice Black & Ors

The applicant, Rolfe, sought orders from Kirby J, sitting in chambers, against the Chief Justice and other respondents. The dispute concerned the alleged failure of the respondents to provide Rolfe with reasons for a decision made by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania. Rolfe contended that this failure constituted a breach of his rights and sought judicial review of the respondents' conduct.

The central legal issue before Kirby J was whether the Chief Justice and the other respondents had a legal obligation to provide Rolfe with reasons for the Full Court's decision, and if so, what the appropriate remedy was for their alleged failure to do so. This involved considering the nature of the right to reasons for judicial decisions and the scope of any such obligation in the context of the Supreme Court of Tasmania's procedures.

Kirby J considered the principles governing the provision of reasons for judicial decisions. His Honour noted that while there is a general expectation that courts will provide reasons, this is not an absolute or unqualified right in all circumstances. The obligation to provide reasons typically arises from statutory provisions or established common law principles, and its extent can depend on the nature of the proceedings and the stage at which the decision is made. In this instance, Kirby J found that the applicant had not established a legal entitlement to the reasons sought in the manner and at the time he demanded them, and therefore, the application for orders against the Chief Justice and the other respondents was dismissed.