Skyring v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group

[1993] QCA 118

COURT OF APPEAL

McPHERSON JA
PINCUS JA

SHEPHERDSON J

Appeal No 230 of 1992

ALAN GEORGE SKYRING	Appellant
and
AUSTRALIA & NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP	Respondent
BRISBANE ..DATE 25/03/93

JUDGMENT
McPHERSON JA: On 17 December 1990 Mr Justice Dowsett in the
Supreme Court struck out action No 3358 of 1987, it being an
action brought by the appellant against the Australia & New
Zealand Banking Group Limited.

Although the action had, by virtue of that order striking it out, thus come to an end, and although no appeal was instituted against the order of Mr Justice Dowsett, the appellants here nonetheless applied to Mr Justice Derrington in the Supreme Court in 1992 for an order extending the time for appealing against orders that had been made in that action by Master Lee at an earlier date; that is, in October 1987.

The application included various other claims, including a claim for an injunction to restrain the ANZ Banking Group from disposing of land and securities pursuant to orders that were also said to be erroneous in what is described as an inter-related action No 3423 of 1988 in the Supreme Court. The application that was made to him in 1992 was dismissed by Mr Justice Derrington on 30 October 1992.

The applicant brings this appeal against that order dismissing it. We have been taken, as we were in the previous appeal we heard, to the appellant’s arguments about the sufficiency or validity of the currency system in Australia, and to his complaints about the unsatisfactory state of the legal and judicial system.

So far as I am concerned, none of these questions is relevant to the appeal that is now before us. The short answer to this appeal is that the action in which the application was made from which appeal is now sought to be brought, was struck out in December 1990.

Nothing has happened since to alter that state of affairs. There cannot be an appeal in an action that was struck out at a time well before the application from which this appeal is sought to be brought.

I would accordingly dismiss the appeal in this case.

PINCUS JA: I agree.

SHEPHERDSON J: I agree.

McPHERSON JA: The order of the Court is that the appeal is dismissed.

...

McPHERSON JA: The order that should be made in this case is that the appellant should pay the respondent’s costs of appeal to be taxed.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Skyring v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group, the appellant, Alan George Skyring, sought to appeal against an order of the Supreme Court that dismissed an application he had made to extend the time for appealing against earlier orders in a legal action. The respondent in the appeal was the Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Limited. The original action had been struck out by Mr Justice Dowsett in December 1990, and the appellant’s application to extend the time for appeal was dismissed by Mr Justice Derrington in October 1992. The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the appeal against the dismissal of the application to extend the time for appeal was valid, given that the original action had been struck out.

The legal issues in the case centred on the validity of an appeal against an order dismissing an application to extend time, in circumstances where the underlying action had already been struck out. The Court needed to consider whether the appellant had standing to appeal the dismissed application given the finality of the order striking out the original action. Additionally, the Court had to address whether the appellant’s broader criticisms of the legal and currency systems were relevant to the matter before them.

The Court of Appeal held that the appeal was without merit. The primary judge, McPherson JA, reasoned that the original action had been effectively concluded by the order striking it out, and no subsequent order could alter this. As such, any appeal from an order made in relation to that action after it had been struck out was not valid. Pincus JA and Shepherdson J concurred with this reasoning. The appeal was dismissed, and the Court ordered that the appellant should pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established