Scott v Bowden

Case [2002] HCA 60

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

McHUGH J

LETTY MARIE SCOTT & ANOR   PLAINTIFFS

AND

WILLIAM HENRY BOWDEN & ORS   DEFENDANTS

Scott v Bowden [2002] HCA 60

17 December 2002
S346/2002

ORDER

1.Liberty be granted to the plaintiffs to file and serve any amended statement of claim on or before 31 January 2003.

2.The matter be remitted to the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory as if the steps already taken and to be taken under order 1 were taken in the Supreme Court of that Territory.

3.The Registrar of this Court provide to the proper officer of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory photocopies of all pleadings and summonses filed in this Court and the originals of the other materials in the Court file.

4.The costs of the proceedings in this Court to date are to be costs in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory.

5.The costs referred to in this Court, including the costs of this order, be according to the scale applicable to proceedings in this Court and thereafter according to the scale applicable in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory and in the discretion of that Court.

Notice:  This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

  1. McHUGH J. Of my own motion, I asked the parties to these proceedings why I should not remit this matter to the Federal Court of Australia under the power conferred by s 44 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth).

  2. The plaintiffs have filed a Statement of Claim in this Court claiming various forms of relief against the defendants.  The plaintiffs are residents of New South Wales, at least one of the defendants is a resident of Queensland, and the other defendants are residents or appear to be residents of the Northern Territory.  The Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim are far from clear.  They do not specify the true nature of the plaintiffs' claims and will need amendment, if the present action is to proceed.  But, read generously, they claim damages for loss suffered as the result of the death of Douglas Bruce Scott who was the first plaintiff's husband and the second plaintiff's father while he was in custody in the Northern Territory.  The plaintiffs also appear to make a claim for an order that the defendants be charged with unlawful imprisonment, torture, murder and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.  All the conduct that is the subject of the claims is alleged to have taken place in the Northern Territory.  At the material times, the defendants are alleged to have been employees of the Territory.

  3. The material filed in support of the Statement of Claim demonstrates that the issues involve many questions of fact that are not suitable to be tried in this Court given its constitutional and appellate functions. All parties agree that the matter should be remitted to another court under the power conferred by s 44 of the Judiciary…

Continue reading Scott v Bowden

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Scott v Bowden [2002] HCA 60
Case
[2002] HCA 60
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Scott v Bowden*, the High Court of Australia considered an application concerning proceedings that had been commenced in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory but were subsequently filed in the High Court. The dispute involved a claim by the plaintiffs against the defendant, though the precise nature of the claim is not detailed in the provided text.

The central legal issue before the High Court was the appropriate procedural course to take given the circumstances of the filing. Specifically, the court had to determine how to deal with the proceedings that had been initiated in a state Supreme Court but were then presented to the High Court, and what orders were necessary to ensure the matter could be properly heard and determined.

The High Court's reasoning, as evidenced by its orders, focused on facilitating the continuation of the litigation in the correct jurisdiction. The court granted the plaintiffs liberty to amend their statement of claim and ordered that the matter be remitted to the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. This effectively treated the High Court proceedings as if they had been conducted in the Northern Territory Supreme Court, with directions for the transfer of all relevant court documents. The court also made orders regarding the costs of the proceedings in the High Court, stipulating that these costs would be costs in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory and would be assessed according to the scales of both courts.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Liberty be granted to the plaintiffs to file and serve any amended statement of claim on or before 31 January 2003.

2. The matter be remitted to the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory as if the steps already taken and to be taken under order 1 were taken in the Supreme Court of that Territory.

3. The Registrar of this Court provide to the proper officer of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory photocopies of all pleadings and summonses filed in this Court and the originals of the other materials in the Court file.

4. The costs of the proceedings in this Court to date are to be costs in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory.

5. The costs referred to in this Court, including the costs of this order, be according to the scale applicable to proceedings in this Court and thereafter according to the scale applicable in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory and in the discretion of that Court.

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

HUGH J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: HUGH J

Full text does not contain this section.