Perry v Howard [2005] FCA 1702

Perry v Howard [2005] FCA 1702

The amended application and statement of claim do not disclose a reasonable cause of action, lack material facts to support any identifiable legal claim, and are frivolous within the meaning of O 20 r 2 of the Federal Court Rules. The applicant failed to properly invoke the Court’s jurisdiction and could not satisfy statutory requirements under discrimination law or judicial review, warranting summary dismissal with costs.

Parties
Applicant: John Perry; First Respondent: John Howard; Second Respondent: Government of Australia; Third Respondent: Government of Britain; Fourth Respondent: Government of Ireland
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Application / Summary Dismissal Application
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs; notice of motion dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Dismissal, Reasonable Cause of Action, Racial Discrimination, Jurisdiction, Strike Out Applications
Practice and Procedure Discrimination Law Summary Dismissal Reasonable Cause of Action Racial Discrimination Jurisdiction Strike Out Applications

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Perry

Applicant

John Howard

First Respondent

Government of Australia

Second Respondent

Government of Britain

Third Respondent

Government of Ireland

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application / Summary Dismissal Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the amended application and statement of claim disclose a reasonable cause of action
  2. 2 Whether the proceeding is frivolous or vexatious
  3. 3 Whether there is an abuse of the process of the Court

Ratio Decidendi

The amended application and statement of claim do not disclose a reasonable cause of action, lack material facts to support any identifiable legal claim, and are frivolous within the meaning of O 20 r 2 of the Federal Court Rules. The applicant failed to properly invoke the Court’s jurisdiction and could not satisfy statutory requirements under discrimination law or judicial review, warranting summary dismissal with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs; notice of motion dismissed

Orders

  • The applicant's amended application and statement of claim filed on 17 October 2005 is struck out.
  • The applicant's application filed on 13 April 2005 and subsequently amended is dismissed.