Quach v Marks (No 2) [2022] FCA 1335

Quach v Marks (No 2) [2022] FCA 1335

Neither application for leave to appeal disclosed any viable ground, with the applicant's claims being colourable attempts to fabricate federal jurisdiction; the tender of NCAT decisions was not for the purpose prohibited by s 91, and the primary judge was entitled both to grant the Attorney General's intervention and to refuse leave to appeal. The Federal Court has no jurisdiction over the subject of the claims, and no error shown in the primary judge's decisions.

Parties
Applicant: Dr Michael Van Thanh Quach; First Respondent: Frank Marks; Second Respondent: Attorney General for New South Wales
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Applications for Leave to Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal From Decisions of a Single Judge
Outcome
Applications for extension of time and for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Summary Dismissal, Court Jurisdiction, Intervention by Attorney General
Practice and Procedure Administrative Law Leave to Appeal Summary Dismissal Court Jurisdiction Intervention by Attorney General

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 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Michael Van Thanh Quach

Applicant

Frank Marks

First Respondent

Attorney General for New South Wales

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Applications for Leave to Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal From Decisions of a Single Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted from a single judge's decision refusing jurisdiction and granting summary dismissal
  2. 2 Whether s 91 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) excludes prior NCAT decisions as evidence in support of summary dismissal
  3. 3 Whether the Attorney General for New South Wales lawfully intervened

Ratio Decidendi

Neither application for leave to appeal disclosed any viable ground, with the applicant's claims being colourable attempts to fabricate federal jurisdiction; the tender of NCAT decisions was not for the purpose prohibited by s 91, and the primary judge was entitled both to grant the Attorney General's intervention and to refuse leave to appeal. The Federal Court has no jurisdiction over the subject of the claims, and no error shown in the primary judge's decisions.

Court Disposition

Applications for extension of time and for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The application for an extension of time and leave to appeal in ACD 25 of 2021 be dismissed.
  • The application for leave to appeal in ACD 57 of 2021 be dismissed.