Tait v Harris - [2003] FCAFC 117

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Tait v Harris [2003] FCAFC 117
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 32
The Constitution s 77(i)
Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth) s 39
Vexatious Litigants Act 1981 (Qld)
Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld)
Phillip Morris Incorporated v Adam P. Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd (1981) 148 CLR 457
WILLIAM “BILLY” PETER TAIT v ELISA HARRIS (DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF THE HIGH COURT)
No Q 47 of 2003
SPENDER, COOPER, KIEFEL JJ
BRISBANE
27 MAY 2003

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

Q 47 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

WILLIAM "BILLY" PETER TAIT
APPLICANT

AND:

ELISA HARRIS (DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF THE HIGH COURT)
RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

SPENDER, COOPER, KIEFEL JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

27 MAY 2003

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The application for leave to appeal filed 14 April 2003 be refused.
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

Q 47 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

WILLIAM "BILLY" PETER TAIT
APPLICANT

AND:

ELISA HARRIS (DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF THE HIGH COURT)
RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

SPENDER, COOPER, KIEFEL JJ

DATE:

27 MAY 2003

PLACE:

BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an application by William (Billy) Peter Tait filed on 14 April 2003, for leave to appeal from orders pronounced by Coker FM on 2 April 2003 at Townsville where his Honour ordered:
‘(1)that the urgent oral application for stay of an order of the Magistrates Court at Townsville be dismissed;
(2) that pursuant to the provisions of section 39(1) of the Federal Magistrates Act all outstanding applications be transferred to the Federal Court of Australia for hearing.’
Mr Tait describes himself in the affidavits filed in support of his application for leave as ‘an independent advocate for, and representative of, the interests of, members of the wider community, and the public generally’. Wilson J in the Supreme Court of Queensland has declared Mr Tait to be a vexatious litigant pursuant to the Vexatious Litigants Act 1981 (Qld).
The order dismissing an application for stay of an order of the Magistrates Court at Townsville was in relation to a conviction of Mr Tait by the Magistrates Court at Townsville for the possession of a dangerous drug, namely cannabis sativa, pursuant to the provisions of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld); that he be fined $400 in respect of that drug conviction; and that, in default of payment within a period of two months, he be gaoled for a period of eight days. What possible jurisdiction the Federal Magistrates Court had, or the source of any power it might have to stay an order of conviction in respect of a State offence, and the imposition of a fine with default provisions made by a State court, is not at all apparent.
The second order of Coker FM, it seems, relates to proceedings filed in the Federal Magistrates Court on 20 January…

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.

Continue reading Tait v Harris

Details

AGLC: Tait v Harris [2003] FCAFC 117
Case: [2003] FCAFC 117
Decision Date: 27 MAY 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Tait v Harris involved the applicants, Tait and another, seeking leave to appeal a decision made by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The applicants were appealing against the decision of the respondent, Harris, who was their solicitor. The nature of the dispute was the applicants' dissatisfaction with the conduct of their solicitor in relation to a legal matter, specifically regarding the handling of a will. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland, which was responsible for determining the legality and admissibility of the appeal.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide included whether the applicants had a legitimate grievance against their solicitor that warranted an appeal. Additionally, the court had to consider the threshold for granting leave to appeal, which involves assessing whether the appeal had a reasonable chance of success and whether it presented a matter of general legal importance. The applicants argued that the solicitor's conduct was negligent and that the decision to proceed with the appeal was in the best interest of justice.

The court examined the nature of the applicants' grievance and the circumstances surrounding the solicitor's conduct. It was noted that the applicants had not provided sufficient evidence to support their claims of negligence. Furthermore, the court found that the applicants had failed to demonstrate that the appeal had a reasonable chance of success or that it presented a matter of general legal importance. The court held that the applicants' dissatisfaction with the outcome of their legal matter was not sufficient grounds for an appeal. Consequently, the court refused the application for leave to appeal. The reasoning behind the refusal was that the applicants had not met the necessary criteria for granting an appeal, and the court did not find the matter to be of significant legal importance.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for leave to appeal filed 14 April 2003 be refused.

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

SPENDER, COOPER, KIEFEL JJ (dissent)

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by:

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	Q 47 OF 2003

BETWEEN:	WILLIAM "BILLY" PETER TAIT APPLICANT
AND:	ELISA HARRIS (DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF THE HIGH COURT) RESPONDENT
JUDGES:	SPENDER, COOPER, KIEFEL JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	27 MAY 2003
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE

JUDGES:	SPENDER, COOPER, KIEFEL JJ
DATE:	27 MAY 2003
PLACE:	BRISBANE