Slater v Slater (No. 2)

[2001] FCA 1711

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Slater v Slater (No. 2) [2001] FCA 1711

MERRILEE MARGARET SLATER v WALTER LAURENCE SLATER & ANOR
A 62 of 2000

MERRILEE MARGARET SLATER v WALTER LAURENCE SLATER & ANOR
A 78 of 2000

WHITLAM, MADGWICK & KENNY JJ
15 JUNE 2001
CANBERRA

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

DISTRICT REGISTRY

A 62 of 2000
A 78 of 2000

A 62 OF 2000:

BETWEEN:	MERRILEE MARGARET SLATER Appellant
AND:	WALTER LAURENCE SLATER First Respondent
LAURENCE WALTER SLATER Second Respondent

A 78 OF 2000:

BETWEEN:	MERRILEE MARGARET SLATER Applicant
AND:	WALTER LAURENCE SLATER First Respondent
LAURENCE WALTER SLATER Second Respondent

JUDGES:	WHITLAM, MADGWICK & KENNY JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	15 JUNE 2001
WHERE MADE:	CANBERRA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.If leave to file the notice of motion dated 21 May 2001 is required, then leave is refused.

2.If leave to file the notice of motion date 21 May 2001 is not required, the said notice of motion is dismissed.

THE COURT DIRECTS THAT:

1.The Registrar enter the orders made on 16 May 2001.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

DISTRICT REGISTRY

A 62 of 2000
A 78 of 2000

A 62 OF 2000:

BETWEEN:	MERRILEE MARGARET SLATER Appellant
AND:	WALTER LAURENCE SLATER First Respondent
LAURENCE WALTER SLATER Second Respondent

A 78 OF 2000:

BETWEEN:	MERRILEE MARGARET SLATER Applicant
AND:	WALTER LAURENCE SLATER First Respondent
LAURENCE WALTER SLATER Second Respondent

JUDGES:	WHITLAM, MADGWICK & KENNY JJ
DATE:	15 JUNE 2001
PLACE:	CANBERRA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(revised from transcript)

THE COURT:

1. On 16 May 2001, this Court dismissed proceedings brought by Mrs Slater.  Subsequently, Mrs Slater presented an intended notice of motion and intended supporting affidavit dated 21 May 2001 to the Australian Capital Territory Registry of this Court, for filing.  The intended notice of motion seeks an order that the Full Court reconsider appeal number A62 of 2000, heard on 16 May 2001.  That proceeding, along with others, was dismissed by this Court on 16 May 2001.

2. The order dismissing the appeal had not been entered.  The Court has taken the view that Mrs Slater’s proposed motion would be caught by the order which Madgwick J made in respect of Mrs Slater under O 21 r 1(b) of the Federal Court Rules in Slater v Higgins [2001] FCA 549. Upon that assumption, the view of the Court is that leave should not be granted to Mrs Slater to file the notice of motion because there is insufficient prospect of success in relation to it. There is no reasonably arguable case for a different result in appeal number A62 of 2000 disclosed either by the material in the affidavit Mrs Slater wishes to file, or by the further material to which Mrs Slater has referred in oral submissions.

3. If, however, we are wrong in the view that Mrs Slater needs leave to file the notice of motion, we would, in any case, dismiss the notice of motion for the same reason, namely that there is no sufficient prospect that, if this Court did reconsider the appeal (assuming we would have the power to do it), any different result would follow as a result of what is in the affidavit, or in the additional material referred to by Mrs Slater.

4. So, whichever way the matter is analysed, the Court will not be reopening, in any way, the decisions made on 16 May 2001 and accordingly, the view of the Court is that we should now direct the Registrar to enter the orders then made.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Court.

Associate:

Dated:             6 December 2001

Appellant/Applicant appeared in person
No appearances for the 1st and 2nd Respondents
Date of Hearing:	15 June 2001
Date of Judgment:	15 June 2001