Sharples v Australian Electoral Commission (No 2)

[2007] FCA 2103

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Sharples v Australian Electoral Commission (No 2) [2007] FCA 2103

TERRY PATRICK SHARPLES AND THE FISHING PARTY v AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION, AUSTRALIAN FISHING & LIFESTYLE PARTY, KEVIN COLLINS, WAYNE BAYNE, ALEX WHITTEN, MALCOLM BAIRSTOW AND COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRALIA

ACD 53 OF 2007

FLICK J
11 DECEMBER 2007
CANBERRA

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY	ACD 53 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

TERRY PATRICK SHARPLES
First Applicant

THE FISHING PARTY
Second Applicant

AND:

AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION
First Respondent

AUSTRALIAN FISHING & LIFESTYLE PARTY
Second Respondent

KEVIN COLLINS
Third Respondent

WAYNE BAYNE
Fourth Respondent

ALEX WHITTEN
Fifth Respondent

MALCOLM BAIRSTOW
Sixth Respondent

COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRALIA
Seventh Respondent

JUDGE:	FLICK J
DATE OF ORDER:	11 DECEMBER 2007
WHERE MADE:	CANBERRA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Leave to appeal the orders made on 11 December 2007 in respect to Order 1 of the Notice of Motion dated 29 November 2007 be refused.

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY	ACD 53 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

TERRY PATRICK SHARPLES
First Applicant

THE FISHING PARTY
Second Applicant

AND:

AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION
First Respondent

AUSTRALIAN FISHING & LIFESTYLE PARTY
Second Respondent

KEVIN COLLINS
Third Respondent

WAYNE BAYNE
Fourth Respondent

ALEX WHITTEN
Fifth Respondent

MALCOLM BAIRSTOW
Sixth Respondent

COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRALIA
Seventh Respondent

JUDGE:	FLICK J
DATE:	11 DECEMBER 2007
PLACE:	CANBERRA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. An Application is made by Mr Robert Smith, ostensibly on behalf of the Second Applicant, for leave to appeal the orders as made this afternoon in respect to the Notice of Motion dated 29 November 2007.  Those orders refused to grant leave to Mr Smith to commence or carry on proceedings on behalf of the Second Applicant.

2. Leave to appeal is refused.

3. In considering whether leave should or should not be granted, consideration has been given to whether the orders are attendant with sufficient doubt as to warrant the granting of leave or whether any injustice would be incurred if leave is refused.

4. Spender J has previously directed attention to O 4 r 14 of the Federal Court Rules 1979 (Cth) and has made his orders.  The Second Applicant has again been given the benefit this afternoon of adducing evidence in effect to revisit the orders made by Spender J and to again seek a favourable exercise of the discretion conferred by that rule.

5. It is not considered that there is any error in principle or any injustice suffered by refusing leave.  Accordingly, leave to appeal is refused.

   ORDERS

6. The orders of the Court are:

   1.   Leave to appeal the orders made on 11 December 2007 in respect to Order 1 of the Notice of Motion dated 29 November 2007 be refused.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Flick.

Associate:

Dated:       22 January 2008

The First Applicant:	Self-represented
Party seeking leave to appear on behalf of the Second Applicant:	Mr R Smith
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms C Dowsett
Date of Hearing:	11 December 2007
Date of Judgment:	11 December 2007