Stephens & Anor v Ce, Dept Tourism, Racing and Fair Trading

[2004] HCATrans 53

[2004] HCATrans 053

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Brisbane  No B87 of 2002

B e t w e e n -

ROSS CHARLES STEPHENS

Applicant

ALPHANOMETRY PTY LTD

Second Applicant

and

CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM, RACING AND FAIR TRADING

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

McHUGH ACJ
HAYNE J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

FROM BRISBANE BY VIDEO LINK TO CANBERRA

ON FRIDAY, 12 MARCH 2004, AT 10.23 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR R.C. STEPHENS appeared in person. 

MR P.J FLANAGAN, SC:  If the Court pleases, I appear with MR D.A QUAYLE for the respondent.  (instructed by C.W. Lohe) 

McHUGH ACJ:   Yes, Mr Stephens.

MR STEPHENS:   I would like to thank you very much for hearing me today.  I will not take but five minutes of your time.  I have no legal background, so I apologise if I break any protocol.  This is not about a deal of selling a car, a lemon, to a woman.  As a matter of fact, there has never been a complaint from the woman, only her boyfriend.  It has been heard by the Tribunal in Brisbane, in November 2000.  This case goes back to 1998.  I was without legal representation that day, for reasons I will not go into, but 18 months later we had it heard by the District Court. 

I got a new solicitor, by the name of Don Brown, who I had to report to the Law Society the day after the case.  I have been mislead and lied to.  He would not interview any witnesses on my behalf in the 18 months that we were waiting to go to court, and he would not allow a witness that I had outside, that he knew was outside, to come and give evidence.  As a matter of fact, Mr Brown kept going out and telling that man, “Go home, go away, don’t give evidence”.  I feel I have not been given a fair go, and I would like to appeal for leave.  In the meantime, the same Tribunal people had taken me back to court in December, saying I was operating without a licence.  Well, I was operating while waiting, from 2002 to 2004, to find out if I had leave or not to have this case reheard. 

McHUGH ACJ:   Yes, Mr Stephens.  You will appreciate, Mr Stephens, that we do not sit as a general court of appeal.  Of the tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of cases decided in Australia each year, we can only hear 60 or 70.  There has to be something very special about the case before we grant leave, and you have to show that there is some point of general legal importance ‑ ‑ ‑

MR STEPHENS:   Okay, your Honour.  When I was going to the Tribunal back in November 2000, I had already engaged a solicitor and a barrister, Judge Spender’s wife, Mrs Spender.  Because of a fight between the government inspector, who was prosecuting me, and my brother, when my solicitor found out about that he raised the price, within 24 hours, by another 18,000 to do our hearing.  I do feel that I have not been given a fair go, your Honour.

McHUGH ACJ:   Well, I understand your feelings about this, but we only decide cases on the evidence that was before the Court of Appeal, or the Tribunal ‑ ‑ ‑

MR STEPHENS:   I tried to go to the Court of Appeal to have Mr McGill’s – Mr McGill also said in the courtroom that – which matters I will not go into.  Just give me a few seconds, thank you.

McHUGH ACJ:   Yes.  Mr Stephens, it is probably difficult for you, because, as you say, you are not trained in law, but to get special leave you have to point to something in the reasons of the Court of Appeal judgment which would indicate some legal error of such importance that it would warrant the judges of this Court hearing an appeal.

MR STEPHENS:   Well, my solicitors, Colwell Wright, have put in a legal argument.  You should have the paperwork there from Colwell Wright, Brisbane.

McHUGH ACJ:   Well, we have it, and it ‑ ‑ ‑

MR STEPHENS:   I would be relying on their judgment, as a layperson.

McHUGH ACJ:   Yes.  Well, we have read that, and there does not appear to be anything in what is in that document which suggests that this is a case for special leave to appeal. 

MR STEPHENS:   At this stage, I have not been able to cross‑examine their witness or produce a witness myself in these first two hearings.  That is why I was looking for a third hearing. 

McHUGH ACJ:   Yes, well, we do not sit to re‑hear cases in that sense.  We do not hear witnesses.  We deal with matters of law or general legal principle.  We are not a trial court. 

MR STEPHENS:   That is right, I was just looking – I believe it is in your power to order it to be reheard here in Queensland, at a lower level?

McHUGH ACJ:   We have power to order all sorts of cases to be reheard, but the first thing is that you have to show some reason for distinguishing your case from the tens of thousands of cases that do not warrant a grant of leave. 

MR STEPHENS:   Well, your Honour, I was in business with a perfectly clean, unblemished record for 37 years.  I feel I should be given some credit for the 37 years unblemished record.

McHUGH ACJ:   I can understand you saying that, but that is not a ground for special leave to appeal, Mr Stephens.

MR STEPHENS:   Well, I will not take up any more of your time, your Honour. 

McHUGH ACJ:   Thank you very much, Mr Stephens.

There is nothing in the written argument filed on behalf of the applicant which would warrant the grant of special leave to appeal in this matter.  Nor did the oral submissions of Mr Stephens demonstrate any matter that would warrant the grant of special leave.

Accordingly, the application for special leave to appeal must be refused.

MR FLANAGAN:   May I ask for costs, your Honour?

McHUGH ACJ:   Yes, must be dismissed with costs.

MR FLANAGAN:   Thank you, your Honour.

AT 10.30 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED