Slater v Honourable Chief Justice Miles - [1999] FCA 185

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Slater v Honourable Chief Justice Miles [1999] FCA 185
MERRILEE MARGARET SLATER v THE HONOURABLE JEFFREY ALLAN MILES
AG 110 OF 1998
SPENDER, HIGGINS & WEINBERG JJ
25 FEBRUARY 1999
CANBERRA

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORYDISTRICT REGISTRY

AG 110 OF 1998

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

MERRILEE MARGARET SLATER
Appellant

AND:

THE HONOURABLE JEFFREY ALLAN MILES
First Respondent

REGISTRAR ALAN JEFFREY TOWILL
Second Respondent

SHERIFF JILL CIRCOSTA
Third Respondent

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Fourth Respondent

JUDGES:

SPENDER, HIGGINS & WEINBERG JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

25 FEBRUARY 1999

WHERE MADE:

CANBERRA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The motion for a stay of the appeal is dismissed.
The appeal is dismissed with costs, 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

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORYDISTRICT REGISTRY

AG 110 OF 1998

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

MERRILEE MARGARET SLATER
Appellant

AND:

THE HONOURABLE JEFFREY ALLAN MILES
First Respondent

REGISTRAR ALAN JEFFREY TOWILL
Second Respondent

SHERIFF JILL CIRCOSTA
Third Respondent

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Fourth Respondent

JUDGES:

SPENDER, HIGGINS & WEINBERG JJ

DATE:

25 FEBRUARY 1999

PLACE:

CANBERRA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT ON STAY APPLICATION
SPENDER J:

This morning, on 25 February 1999, the day appointed for the hearing of the appeal by Merrilee Margaret Slater from the judgment of Finn J of 16 October 1998, Mrs Slater filed a notice of motion seeking that this court grant a stay of proceedings. The basis for the application is contained in an affidavit filed this morning as well, which tersely states (1) that Mrs Slater is “in the process of having proceedings No ACTG 110 (sic) of 1998 removed into the High Court of Australia”, and (2) she is “seeking a stay in the proceedings”.
Annexed to that affidavit is a document which is a notice of motion in the High Court of Australia seeking, on a return date to be fixed, an order that the whole of these proceedings be removed into the High Court, pursuant to s 40 of the Judiciary Act 1903. That notice of motion indicates that the proceedings involve questions of:
“(i) Is it just to leave the Supreme Court ACT Decree Nisi Order’s (sic) not Enforced?
(ii) Does the Judiciary Act s 39B(1A)(c) allow a Writ of Mandamus to be placed upon the Supreme Court officers to do their duty to Enforce their Decree under the Service and Execution of Process Act?
(iii) Parliment (sic) provides for the Execution of Decree’s (sic) under s 51(xxiv) of the Constitution, is it right to contravene this?”
These issues were the subject of the judgment of Finn J on 16 October 1998, where his Honour ordered that:
“The answer to the question “Does the Court have jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings?” contained in the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Slater v Honourable Chief Justice Miles and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1999] FCA 185
Decision Date: 25 FEBRUARY 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in Slater v Honourable Chief Justice Miles were Slater, the applicant, and the Honourable Chief Justice Miles, the respondent. The dispute centred around a motion for a stay of the appeal, which Slater sought due to an ongoing proceeding in another jurisdiction that involved the same issues as the appeal. The case was heard by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue was whether the stay of the appeal was appropriate in light of the parallel proceedings in another jurisdiction. The court had to consider the principles of comity and justice in determining whether a stay was warranted. The court also needed to assess whether the proceedings in the other jurisdiction were sufficient to warrant a stay of the appeal.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay of the appeal. It reasoned that the principles of comity did not compel a stay, as the proceedings in the other jurisdiction were not sufficiently connected to the issues in the appeal. The court held that it was appropriate for the appeal to proceed, as the matters raised in the appeal were distinct from those in the other jurisdiction. The court found that the appeal should not be stayed and dismissed it with costs to be taxed if not agreed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The motion for a stay of the appeal is dismissed.

The appeal is dismissed with costs, to be taxed if not agreed.

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.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORYDISTRICT REGISTRY	AG 110 OF 1998

BETWEEN:	MERRILEE MARGARET SLATER Appellant
AND:	THE HONOURABLE JEFFREY ALLAN MILES First Respondent REGISTRAR ALAN JEFFREY TOWILL Second Respondent SHERIFF JILL CIRCOSTA Third Respondent ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY Fourth Respondent
JUDGES:	SPENDER, HIGGINS & WEINBERG JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	25 FEBRUARY 1999
WHERE MADE:	CANBERRA

JUDGES:	SPENDER, HIGGINS & WEINBERG JJ
DATE:	25 FEBRUARY 1999
PLACE:	CANBERRA