Worchild v Brooks

[2006] HCATrans 546

[2006] HCATrans 546

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Brisbane  No B14 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

ANDREW WORCHILD

Applicant

and

RAYMOND SYDNEY BROOKS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GUMMOW J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 5 OCTOBER 2006, AT 9.09 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J:   The applicant, Mr Worchild, is an admitted legal practitioner who at all times has conducted proceedings on his own behalf.  The substantive dispute between him and the respondent, Mr Brooks, relates to a claim lodged by the latter for damages in the sum of $7,961.80 (plus interest) for breach of a residential tenancy agreement following a fire in the kitchen of the unit which Mr Worchild was renting.  Mr Worchild counterclaimed for negligence, breach of contract and breach of statutory duty.  However the application for leave to appeal arises from an interlocutory decision made by the Queensland Magistrates Court at Southport declining to award summary judgment in favour of Mr Worchild and making consequential orders. 

Magistrate Costanzo refused Mr Worchild’s application for summary judgment because there was a real prospect of Mr Brooks successfully defending all or part of the counterclaim, and there was a need for a trial of the claim.  The magistrate also refused to strike out Mr Brooks’ reply to the counterclaim for alleged breach of certain provisions of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules.  An application by Mr Worchild to appeal to the District Court of Queensland was refused by Dearden DCJ.  A further application by Mr Worchild for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland was met with an application brought by Mr Brooks that Mr Worchild provide security for costs as a condition of maintaining his application for leave to appeal.  The Court of Appeal (McMurdo P, Fryberg and Douglas JJ) made orders as sought by Mr Brooks.

The application for special leave to appeal contains 21 diffuse grounds, and the applicant’s written case attempts to support these by irrational and incoherent arguments including some based upon the Constitution. Nothing recited therein in any way points to error in the Court of Appeal’s decision to make the security for costs order, which was clearly open to it. Special leave is refused.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application for special leave.  I publish the disposition signed by Heydon J and myself.

AT 9.11 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED