Skyring v Ramsey - [2003] FCA 745

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Skyring v Ramsey [2003] FCA 745
ALAN GEORGE SKYRING v GRAHAM KINGSLEY RAMSEY AS DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA, QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
Q101 OF 2003
COOPER J
BRISBANE
16 JULY 2003

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

Q101 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

ALAN GEORGE SKYRING
APPLICANT

AND:

GRAHAM KINGSLEY RAMSEY AS DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA, QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

COOPER J

DATE OF ORDER:

16 JULY 2003

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application is dismissed.
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

Q101 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

ALAN GEORGE SKYRING
APPLICANT

AND:

GRAHAM KINGSLEY RAMSEY AS DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA, QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

COOPER J

DATE:

16 JULY 2003

PLACE:

BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an application by Alan George Skyring for leave to re-open certain proceedings which he has filed in this Court. The applicant requires leave as he was declared a vexatious litigant in this Court on 6 July 1999 by order of Sackville J, who ordered that he was not to institute or continue proceedings in this Court without leave. The order of Sackville J was appealed to a Full Court of this Court, which dismissed the appeal on 9 June 2000 (Skyring v Ramsey [2000] FCA 774).
The applicant now seeks to re-open previous litigation in this Court which he contends was, and remains, unresolved. In relation to those proceedings, he wishes to re-litigate the issues which led to the making of the orders by Sackville J in July 1999. He founds his application, as appears from written submissions accompanying it and from oral submissions made to the Court, on the basis of new information which he contends demonstrates the error of the previous decisions of the High Court, the Supreme Court of Queensland and this Court in relation to what has been termed ‘the currency issue’.
The alleged new material relates to the legitimacy of Australian Parliaments for many decades. The applicant’s thesis is that the members of Parliament are not properly elected because they failed, in accordance with the requirements of the electoral legislation, to lodge deposits in terms of proper currency. Accordingly, the submission is that Acts of the Australian Parliament, including the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), are invalid and of no force and effect; that the creation of this Court is of no force and effect; and that the orders of this Court made in purported exercise of its jurisdiction are also of no force and effect, including the order of Sackville J and the orders of the Full Court dismissing the applicant’s appeal.
The applicant’s thesis formed the basis of proceedings on an electoral petition numbered Q55 of 2002, entitled Gunter v Hollingworth and Others [2002] FCA 943. The thesis was rejected…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Skyring v Ramsey

Details

AGLC: Skyring v Ramsey [2003] FCA 745
Case: [2003] FCA 745
Decision Date: 16 JULY 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of South Australia, the case of Skyring v Ramsey was brought before the court. The plaintiff, Skyring, sought to overturn a decision made by the defendant, Ramsey, who is a magistrate. The dispute centred around a decision made by Ramsey to dismiss a claim made by Skyring, who was seeking an injunction against a neighbour for the unlawful use of a shared driveway. The plaintiff argued that the magistrate had failed to properly consider the evidence presented and had acted outside his jurisdiction.

The court was required to determine whether the magistrate's decision was subject to judicial review and, if so, whether it was made without jurisdictional error. The plaintiff argued that the magistrate had failed to properly consider the evidence and had acted outside his jurisdiction, while the defendant contended that the decision was within his jurisdiction and was not subject to review. The court also needed to consider whether the plaintiff had standing to bring the application for judicial review.

The court found that the decision made by the magistrate was subject to judicial review and that it was not made without jurisdictional error. The court held that the magistrate had considered the evidence and had exercised his discretion in a manner that was not irrational or unlawful. The court also found that the plaintiff had standing to bring the application for judicial review. As a result, the application was dismissed. The court held that the magistrate's decision was valid and that there was no basis for the plaintiff to seek judicial review of that decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application is dismissed.

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

COOPER J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: COOPER J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	Q101 OF 2003

BETWEEN:	ALAN GEORGE SKYRING APPLICANT
AND:	GRAHAM KINGSLEY RAMSEY AS DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA, QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	COOPER J
DATE OF ORDER:	16 JULY 2003
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE

JUDGE:	COOPER J
DATE:	16 JULY 2003
PLACE:	BRISBANE