Dooney v Henry [2000] HCA 44

Dooney v Henry [2000] HCA 44

None of the statements of claim or replies alleged facts which, if proved, would entitle the plaintiffs to any of the relief sought. Claims regarding unlawful delegation, statutory demands, standing, and purported jurisdictional defects were wholly unsustainable. The proceedings were frivolous, vexatious, and disclosed no reasonable cause of action. As such, actions should be permanently stayed and costs awarded on an indemnity basis.

Parties
Plaintiff: John Dooney; Defendant: Morris James Clifford Henry; Defendant: Stephen Chapman; Plaintiff: Vincent Morgillo; Defendant: Spencer Ross De Vere; Plaintiff: Ivan Gorshkov; Defendant: Margaret Mary Key; Plaintiff: Jeremy Dive; Plaintiff: William Gair; Plaintiff: Matthew Moeliker
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 August 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application—strike Out/stay Actions
Outcome
Actions permanently stayed; indemnity costs ordered
Legal Topics
Statutory Interpretation, Delegation of Powers, Standing, Winding Up Procedure, Striking Out Pleadings, Costs Indemnity Basis
Taxation Law Corporations Law Civil Procedure Statutory Interpretation Delegation of Powers Standing Winding Up Procedure Striking Out Pleadings +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Dooney

Plaintiff

Morris James Clifford Henry

Defendant

Stephen Chapman

Defendant

Vincent Morgillo

Plaintiff

Spencer Ross De Vere

Defendant

Ivan Gorshkov

Plaintiff

Margaret Mary Key

Defendant

Jeremy Dive

Plaintiff

William Gair

Plaintiff

Matthew Moeliker

Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application—strike Out/stay Actions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs have standing to bring the actions
  2. 2 Whether the statements of claim disclose a reasonable cause of action
  3. 3 Whether there was unlawful delegation in service of statutory notice of demand by ATO officers

Ratio Decidendi

None of the statements of claim or replies alleged facts which, if proved, would entitle the plaintiffs to any of the relief sought. Claims regarding unlawful delegation, statutory demands, standing, and purported jurisdictional defects were wholly unsustainable. The proceedings were frivolous, vexatious, and disclosed no reasonable cause of action. As such, actions should be permanently stayed and costs awarded on an indemnity basis.

Court Disposition

Actions permanently stayed; indemnity costs ordered

Orders

  • The action be permanently stayed.
  • Plaintiff(s) to pay defendant's costs on indemnity basis.