Rolph v Transport Workers' Union of Australia

This matter came before the High Court of Australia on an application by Mr J.C. Rolph, appearing in person, seeking to require the Registrar to receive and file a sworn affidavit dated 16 July, which he alleged had been refused on 20 March of that year. Mr Rolph's application was supported by a further affidavit.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether Mr Rolph was entitled to have his affidavit filed and considered at that stage, or whether he should proceed by way of a special leave application under the High Court Rules. A related issue concerned the applicability of Order 16, rule 28 of the High Court Rules, which Mr Rolph contended placed an onus on him to lay his case before counsel, to his current application.

The Court, through His Honour, indicated that Mr Rolph's application was governed by Order 69A, dealing with special leave applications, rather than Order 16, which pertains to procedures for parties involved in litigation. His Honour explained that on a special leave application, there are no formal parties before the Court, which is why counsel is typically required. The Court noted that Order 69A rule 7(7) provides a mechanism for a party to refer to documents not included in the application book, provided proper notice is given to the other party. His Honour suggested that Mr Rolph's best course of action was to follow this procedure when his special leave application was heard, as this would allow his counsel to present the document. The Court indicated that its preliminary view was in accordance with the Registrar's decision, but that a majority of judges hearing the special leave application might take a different view.