Smith v Rundle

The parties to this proceeding before the High Court of Australia were Norma Rundle and Allan Russell Lloyd and Malcolm Frederick (the applicants) and the respondent, whose identity is not fully specified but who sought certiorari and an interlocutory injunction. The dispute concerned the standing of the respondent to apply for these remedies, specifically challenging the decision of the Full Court.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the respondent had the requisite standing to seek certiorari and an interlocutory injunction. The applicants sought special leave to appeal on the ground that the respondent should not have been held to have standing, arguing that the test for certiorari should be the "special interest" test, similar to that applied for declarations and injunctions, rather than the more liberal test applied by the Full Court.

The applicants contended that the Full Court erred in applying a more liberal test for certiorari, which allows an applicant with a "particular grievance" to obtain the remedy, or for a stranger to obtain it in the court's discretion. This approach was contrasted with the "special interest" test, derived from cases like *Onus v Alcoa*, which requires a plaintiff to have an interest beyond that of the general public and not merely a private right. The applicants argued that this more liberal test for certiorari, particularly when its effect would be similar to that of declarations and injunctions, should be overturned in favour of the special interest test.