Sayed v Justice Michael Hugh O'bryan & Ors

SAYED
v
JUSTICE MICHAEL HUGH O'BRYAN & ORS
[2023] HCASL 170
M44/2023

The applicant seeks leave to appeal from a decision of a single Justice of the High Court of Australia (Steward J) refusing the applicant's application for a constitutional or other writ. By that application, the applicant sought to quash an order made by the Federal Court of Australia (O'Bryan J) dismissing the applicant's application that the primary judge recuse himself and that a writ of prohibition issue preventing the primary judge from determining the applicant's pending proceeding in the Federal Court.
The application does not disclose any arguable error in Steward J's decision and does not raise any question of law of general importance. Accordingly, leave should be refused.
Pursuant to r 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

J.J. Edelman J.S. Gleeson

9 November 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Sayed v Justice Michael Hugh O'bryan & Ors, the applicant sought leave to appeal a decision made by a single Justice of the High Court of Australia, Justice Steward, who had refused the applicant's application for a constitutional or other writ. The applicant's writ application aimed to quash an order made by Justice O'Bryan of the Federal Court of Australia, which dismissed the applicant's request for Justice O'Bryan to recuse himself and issued a writ of prohibition preventing him from determining the applicant's pending proceeding in the Federal Court. The applicant argued that the refusal of the writ application was erroneous and sought leave to appeal to the High Court.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the refusal of the writ application by Justice Steward constituted an arguable error, and if so, whether it raised a question of law of general importance that warranted the grant of leave to appeal. The court examined the grounds of the applicant's appeal and the arguments presented by both parties, assessing whether the applicant had demonstrated sufficient grounds for leave to appeal under the relevant provisions of the High Court Rules.

The court concluded that the application did not disclose any arguable error in Justice Steward's decision and did not raise any question of law of general importance. Consequently, the court held that leave to appeal should be refused. The reasoning was that the application failed to meet the threshold criteria for leave to appeal, as it did not present a case of arguable error that could potentially influence future judicial decisions. The court's decision was grounded in the legal principles governing the grant of leave to appeal, focusing on the importance of the legal questions raised and the potential impact on future cases.

The final orders of the court were that leave to appeal be dismissed, and the Registrar was directed to draw up, sign, and seal an order to that effect. The court's decision was made by Justices Edelman and Gleeson on 9 November 2023.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established