Schorel-Hlavka v Governor General

Schorel-Hlavka applied for leave to appeal against the decision of the Federal Court, which had dismissed an action he brought against the Governor General. The applicant alleged that the Governor General had breached his constitutional rights by not acting in accordance with the advice of his ministers in relation to the appointment of the Prime Minister. The High Court was required to decide whether Schorel-Hlavka had standing to bring the action, and whether the Governor General's actions were justiciable.

The High Court found that Schorel-Hlavka did not have standing to bring the action as he did not have a personal interest in the matter, and that the Governor General's actions in appointing the Prime Minister were not justiciable as they were a political question outside the scope of judicial review. The Court held that the Governor General's actions in appointing the Prime Minister were not subject to the advice of ministers, and that the Court could not interfere with the exercise of the Governor General's constitutional powers. The Court further held that Schorel-Hlavka's action was an attempt to have the Court interfere with the political process, which was beyond the scope of judicial review.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed Schorel-Hlavka's application for leave to appeal, and ordered that the applicant pay the costs of the third respondent. The Court held that the Governor General's actions were not justiciable and that Schorel-Hlavka did not have standing to bring the action. The Court emphasised the importance of maintaining the separation of powers and the role of the courts in upholding the Constitution.