Re Martin's Application [2001] HCA 41

Re Martin's Application [2001] HCA 41

Leave to issue the summons was refused because the applicant conceded no current interest in possession, the proposed relief would have little or no utility, success in underlying proceedings was highly unlikely, and third-party interests would be prejudiced without arguable rights supporting such relief.

Parties
Applicant: Anthony Gilbert Martin; First Respondent: Individual Homes Pty Limited (In Liq); Second Respondent: Partners of a firm of solicitors (acting for first respondent); Wife of Applicant: Sue Martin
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 July 2001
Procedural Posture
Ex Parte Application for Leave to Issue Proceeding / Application for Leave to Issue Summons Refused
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
High Court Rules O 58 R 4(3), Frivolous and Vexatious Proceedings, Leave to Issue Summons, Utility of Proceedings
Practice and Procedure High Court Rules O 58 R 4(3) Frivolous and Vexatious Proceedings Leave to Issue Summons Utility of Proceedings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Gilbert Martin

Applicant

Individual Homes Pty Limited (In Liq)

First Respondent

Partners of a firm of solicitors (acting for first respondent)

Second Respondent

Sue Martin

Wife of Applicant

Procedural Posture

Ex Parte Application for Leave to Issue Proceeding / Application for Leave to Issue Summons Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to issue a summons where prior proceedings have been determined and the process appears frivolous or vexatious under O 58 r 4(3) of the High Court Rules;
  2. 2 Whether the proposed summons has sufficient utility or merit to justify granting leave.

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to issue the summons was refused because the applicant conceded no current interest in possession, the proposed relief would have little or no utility, success in underlying proceedings was highly unlikely, and third-party interests would be prejudiced without arguable rights supporting such relief.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Application for leave to issue a proceeding is refused.