Lawrance v MacDonald [2005] FCA 135

Lawrance v MacDonald [2005] FCA 135

The application for leave was dismissed because the proposed application and affidavit were generalised and unclear, did not distinguish matters based on personal knowledge from assertion, lacked clarity in the structure of the claim, and did not coherently identify conduct capable of supporting relief under s 39B; in that form it would be mischievous and vexatious to allow the application to proceed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to File an Application Under Order 46, Rule 7 a of the Federal Court Rules / Application for Leave After Registrar Refused to Accept or Issue Documents Without Leave of a Judge
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['leave to File Application' 'judiciary Act S 39 B' 'vexatious or Oppressive Proceedings' 'disability Discrimination' 'sex Discrimination']
['federal Jurisdiction' 'administrative Law' 'discrimination Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['leave to File Application' 'judiciary Act S 39 B' 'vexatious or Oppressive Proceedings' 'disability Discrimination' 'sex Discrimination']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to File an Application Under Order 46, Rule 7 a of the Federal Court Rules / Application for Leave After Registrar Refused to Accept or Issue Documents Without Leave of a Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to Ms Lawrance to file the earlier application under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth).' 'Whether the proposed application coherently identified conduct capable of founding relief under s 39B(1) or s 39B(1A)(c).' 'Whether the proposed application and supporting affidavit were in a form that should be permitted to proceed.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave was dismissed because the proposed application and affidavit were generalised and unclear, did not distinguish matters based on personal knowledge from assertion, lacked clarity in the structure of the claim, and did not coherently identify conduct capable of supporting relief under s 39B; in that form it would be mischievous and vexatious to allow the application to proceed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application filed on 15 February 2005 be dismissed.']