AZO24 v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2024] FCA 426

AZO24 v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2024] FCA 426

Leave to file the interlocutory application and accompanying affidavit was refused because there was no prospect of the Court making the extraordinary orders sought on the evidence supplied. The proposed evidence rose no higher than the applicant's suspicions from apparently unconnected events and disclosed an irrational thought process not grounded in reality or rational thinking, so requiring the respondents and the Court to expend public resources on the application would be unjustified.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Federal Court Proceeding in the General Division, Federal Crime and Related Proceedings National Practice Area / Determined on the Papers; Leave to File Interlocutory Application and Accompanying Affidavit Refused
Outcome
Leave refused.
Legal Topics
['leave to File Documents' 'interlocutory Application' 'case Management' 'use of Court Resources']
['practice and Procedure'] ['leave to File Documents' 'interlocutory Application' 'case Management' 'use of Court Resources']

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

Federal Court Proceeding in the General Division, Federal Crime and Related Proceedings National Practice Area / Determined on the Papers; Leave to File Interlocutory Application and Accompanying Affidavit Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be granted leave to file an interlocutory application and accompanying affidavit seeking orders concerning alleged surveillance, intimidation and interference with evidence.' 'Whether there was any prospect that the Court would make the interlocutory orders sought on the evidence proposed to be filed.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to file the interlocutory application and accompanying affidavit was refused because there was no prospect of the Court making the extraordinary orders sought on the evidence supplied. The proposed evidence rose no higher than the applicant's suspicions from apparently unconnected events and disclosed an irrational thought process not grounded in reality or rational thinking, so requiring the respondents and the Court to expend public resources on the application would be unjustified.

Court Disposition

Leave refused.

Orders

  • ['The applicant be refused leave to file the interlocutory application and accompanying affidavit she sought to file on 18 March 2024.']