Elliott v Seymour (No 3) [2001] FCA 1727

Elliott v Seymour (No 3) [2001] FCA 1727

The latest statement of claim fails to disclose a viable cause of action or entitlement to relief in respect of the National Crime Authority or other respondents, other than the misfeasance in public office claim against Crabb. The matters pleaded against the NCA are hypothetical or raise no real, present infringement of legal right. Leave to amend against the NCA is refused; proceedings against the NCA dismissed. The claim against Crabb for misfeasance in public office may proceed, subject to amendment furnishing appropriate particulars.

Parties
Applicant: John Dorman Elliott; First Respondent: Sergeant Douglas Seymour; Second Respondent: Thomas Sherman; Third Respondent: National Crime Authority; Fourth Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions for the State of Victoria; Fifth Respondent: Australian Broadcasting Corporation; Sixth Respondent: Steven Marshall Crabb; Applicant (vg434 of 1993): Peter Camm; Applicant (vg434 of 1993): Peter Damien Scanlon; Applicant (vg434 of 1993): Kenneth Robert Biggins
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 December 2001
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Applications (strike Out, Leave to Amend, Costs) in Civil Proceedings / Judgment on Motions to Strike Out, Leave to Amend, and Costs; Final Orders Except for Specific Claim Against Crabb
Outcome
Claims against the National Crime Authority, Seymour, Sherman, the DPP and others (except Crabb) dismissed; leave to file further amended claim refused except as to Crabb; costs orders made.
Legal Topics
Misfeasance in Public Office, Jurisdiction, Declaratory Relief, Injunctive Relief, Costs Orders, Federal Court Procedure, Pleadings, Judicial Discretion to Strike Out Proceedings, Conspiracy, Abuse of Process
Administrative Law Torts Civil Procedure Misfeasance in Public Office Jurisdiction Declaratory Relief Injunctive Relief Costs Orders +5 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 4 Authorities cited 35 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Dorman Elliott

Applicant

Sergeant Douglas Seymour

First Respondent

Thomas Sherman

Second Respondent

National Crime Authority

Third Respondent

Director of Public Prosecutions for the State of Victoria

Fourth Respondent

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Fifth Respondent

Steven Marshall Crabb

Sixth Respondent

Peter Camm

Applicant (vg434 of 1993)

Peter Damien Scanlon

Applicant (vg434 of 1993)

Kenneth Robert Biggins

Applicant (vg434 of 1993)

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Applications (strike Out, Leave to Amend, Costs) in Civil Proceedings / Judgment on Motions to Strike Out, Leave to Amend, and Costs; Final Orders Except for Specific Claim Against Crabb

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the latest statement of claim discloses an actionable claim against the National Crime Authority and others for conspiracy, misfeasance in public office, and related causes of action;
  2. 2 Whether declaratory or injunctive relief can be granted for alleged unlawful investigation by the NCA;
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded on an indemnity basis;

Ratio Decidendi

The latest statement of claim fails to disclose a viable cause of action or entitlement to relief in respect of the National Crime Authority or other respondents, other than the misfeasance in public office claim against Crabb. The matters pleaded against the NCA are hypothetical or raise no real, present infringement of legal right. Leave to amend against the NCA is refused; proceedings against the NCA dismissed. The claim against Crabb for misfeasance in public office may proceed, subject to amendment furnishing appropriate particulars.

Court Disposition

Claims against the National Crime Authority, Seymour, Sherman, the DPP and others (except Crabb) dismissed; leave to file further amended claim refused except as to Crabb; costs orders made.

Orders

  • Proceedings against the National Crime Authority dismissed;
  • Applicant to pay costs of the first, second, third and fourth respondents (Seymour, Sherman, NCA, DPP) on a party and party basis, including reserved costs and specified hearings;