Gunter v Doogan [2003] FCA 700

Gunter v Doogan [2003] FCA 700

Leave to file the application as against the second and third respondents is refused because they have no interest in the order for costs; the matter concerning the Principal Registrar of the High Court is adjourned to enable the applicant to approach a Justice of the High Court as this Court's jurisdiction is doubtful and should not be exercised prior to such steps.

Parties
Applicant: Richard Stephen Gunter; First Respondent: Christopher Doogan, Principal Registrar, High Court of Australia; Second Respondent: Graham Kingsley Ramsey, District Registrar, Queensland, Federal Court of Australia; Third Respondent: Barry Cosgrove, Senior Lawyer, Brisbane Office, Australian Government Solicitor
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Application / Interlocutory
Outcome
leave to file refused as against second and third respondents; application against first respondent adjourned
Legal Topics
Leave to File, Costs Taxation, Jurisdiction
Civil Procedure Leave to File Costs Taxation Jurisdiction

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Stephen Gunter

Applicant

Christopher Doogan, Principal Registrar, High Court of Australia

First Respondent

Graham Kingsley Ramsey, District Registrar, Queensland, Federal Court of Australia

Second Respondent

Barry Cosgrove, Senior Lawyer, Brisbane Office, Australian Government Solicitor

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application / Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to file an application against the second and third respondents should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Court has jurisdiction to intervene concerning the Principal Registrar of the High Court's refusal to permit proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to file the application as against the second and third respondents is refused because they have no interest in the order for costs; the matter concerning the Principal Registrar of the High Court is adjourned to enable the applicant to approach a Justice of the High Court as this Court's jurisdiction is doubtful and should not be exercised prior to such steps.

Court Disposition

leave to file refused as against second and third respondents; application against first respondent adjourned

Orders

  • Leave to file the application as against the second and third respondents is refused.
  • The notice of motion against the first respondent is adjourned to a date to be fixed to enable the applicant to approach a High Court Justice.