Skyring v Australian Electoral Commissioner

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Skyring v Australian Electoral Commissioner [1999] FCA 113

ALAN GEORGE SKYRING V AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER
QG 148 OF 1998

SPENDER, COOPER & TAMBERLIN JJ
16 FEBRUARY 1999

BRISBANE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	QG 148 OF 1998

BETWEEN:	ALAN GEORGE SKYRING Appellant
AND:	AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER Respondent
JUDGES:	SPENDER, COOPER & TAMBERLIN JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	16 FEBRUARY 1999
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for leave for an extension of time within which to appeal is refused.

2.The applicant pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the application, to be taxed if not agreed.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	QG 148 OF 1998

BETWEEN:	ALAN GEORGE SKYRING Appellant
AND:	AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER Respondent

JUDGES:	SPENDER, COOPER & TAMBERLIN JJ
DATE:	16 FEBRUARY 1999
PLACE:	BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

SPENDER J:

1. On 14 September 1998, Mr Skyring filed an application for an order of review to review a decision of the Australian Electoral Commissioner to accept the nomination payments of candidates in the seat of Ryan for the federal election to be held on 3 October 1998.

2. A notice of motion was filed by the Australian Electoral Commissioner on 20 October 1998 - that is to say, after the election had been held - which sought to have Mr Skyring's application for an order of review dismissed pursuant to O 20, r 2 of the Federal Court Rules on the basis that no reasonable cause of action was disclosed, the proceeding was frivolous or vexatious, or was an abuse of process.  Mr Skyring today says that it was as a response to this notice of motion that he filed his notice of motion with which this present application for leave to appeal is concerned.

3. On 21 October 1998, Mr Skyring filed a notice of motion seeking orders first, that counsel for the respondent, a Mr M. Hanson “be not heard further in the course of deliberations to determine the course that further action in this matter overall should take”; and secondly, that the Australian Electoral Commissioner “similarly not be heard further on these matters, in deliberations to determine the course that further action in this matter overall should take”.  On 23 October 1998, Dowsett J dealt with Mr Skyring's motion.

4. It seems to me that the present application for leave to appeal from the orders of Dowsett J on 23 October 1998, wherein he dismissed the motion and ordered Mr Skyring to pay the respondent's costs of that motion, is based on a misconception.  In essence, what Mr Skyring is centrally concerned about depends on his appeal from the decision made by his Honour on 4 December 1998, and that his application for leave to appeal from the orders made on 23 October 1998 is simply misconceived.

5. On 23 October 1998 Mr Skyring initially said…