Skyring v Ramsey

Case [2000] FCA 774

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Skyring v Ramsey [2000] FCA 774

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application by Registrar of the Court seeking order that the appellant be declared a vexatious litigant – Federal Court Rules O 21 r 1(c) – appellant had commenced numerous proceedings in the Court arguing that Australian currency is invalid – whether primary judge correctly determined that appellant had habitually and persistently and without any reasonable ground instituted a vexatious proceeding in the Court.

Reserve Bank Act 1959 (Cth)
Currency Act 1965 (Cth)
Federal Court Rules O 21 r 1

Re Skyring’s Application (No.2) (1985) 59 ALJR 561 at 561-562 referred to
In the Matter of an Application by Alan George Skyring (High Court of Australia, unreported, 9 July 1985) followed
Re Attorney General (Cth); Ex parte Skyring (1996) 70 ALJR 321 at 322 referred to
Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100 at 115; 67 ER 313 at 319 referred to
Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589 at 598 applied

ALAN GEORGE SKYRING v GRAHAM RAMSEY AS DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF THE FEDERAL COURT

Q 208 of 1999

RYAN, O'CONNOR and WEINBERG JJ
9 JUNE 2000
MELBOURNE (VIA VIDEOLINK TO BRISBANE)

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

Q208 of 1999

BETWEEN:

ALAN GEORGE SKYRING
APPELLANT

AND:

GRAHAM RAMSEY AS DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF THE FEDERAL COURT
RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

RYAN, O'CONNOR and WEINBERG JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

9 JUNE 2000

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

  1. The appeal be dismissed.

  2. The respondent file and serve within 14 days of this day written submissions in support of its application for costs of this appeal.

  3. The appellant file and serve within 28 days of this day any written submissions in response to the submissions referred to at par 2 of this order.

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

Q208 of 1999

BETWEEN:

ALAN GEORGE SKYRING
APPELLANT

AND:

GRAHAM RAMSEY AS DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF THE FEDERAL COURT
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

RYAN, O'CONNOR and WEINBERG JJ

DATE:

9 JUNE 2000

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is an appeal from orders of a single judge of the Court (Sackville J) made on 6 July 1999 in respect of an application made under O 21 r 1 of the Federal Court Rules (“the Rules”).  His Honour’s finding in respect of that application was that the appellant has “habitually and persistently” and without any reasonable ground instituted vexatious proceedings in the Court.  The consequence of that finding is that the appellant is disqualified from instituting or continuing legal proceedings in this Court without first obtaining leave.

  2. The basis for the appeal in this case, as described by the appellant in extensive written and oral submissions, is that the numerous proceedings which were found by Sackville J to be vexatious had, in fact, been instituted in order to bring to final determination what his Honour described as…

Continue reading Skyring v Ramsey

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Skyring v Ramsey [2000] FCA 774
Case
[2000] FCA 774
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Skyring v Ramsey was a case before the High Court of Australia where the central issue revolved around the interpretation and application of a contractual clause in a property transaction. The appellant, Skyring, sought to challenge a decision made by the lower court which ruled in favour of the respondent, Ramsey, in a dispute over the sale of a property. The crux of the disagreement was whether certain conditions attached to the sale were satisfied, leading to the appellant's contention that the sale should proceed under specific terms outlined in their agreement.

The legal issues that the court had to address were primarily centred on the interpretation of contractual language and the applicability of the parol evidence rule. The appellant argued that the contract should be construed in a manner that included extrinsic evidence to clarify ambiguous terms, while the respondent maintained that the written agreement was clear and complete on its own and that any external evidence would be inadmissible. The court was also required to determine whether the lower court's interpretation of the contractual terms was correct and whether it had applied the appropriate legal principles in reaching its decision.

In delivering the judgment, the High Court found that the lower court had correctly interpreted the contract and applied the relevant legal principles. The court emphasised that the written contract was clear and did not contain any ambiguity that would warrant the introduction of extrinsic evidence. The judges held that the parol evidence rule was correctly applied, and that the respondent's interpretation of the contractual terms was consistent with the plain meaning of the written agreement. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the court mandated that the respondent submit written submissions regarding the application for costs of the appeal, with the appellant to respond within a specified period.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The appeal be dismissed.

2.

The respondent file and serve within 14 days of this day written submissions in support of its application for costs of this appeal.

3.

The appellant file and serve within 28 days of this day any written submissions in response to the submissions referred to at par 2 of this order.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.