Louis, R.M. & Ors v Commonwealth of Australia & Anor [1986] FCA 396

Louis, R.M. & Ors v Commonwealth of Australia & Anor [1986] FCA 396

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicants failed to demonstrate any ground supporting insufficiency of discovery affidavits or miscarriage in the exercise of the Supreme Court’s discretion. Legal principles were correctly applied and established discretion was not shown to have miscarried.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Rosalina Melena Louis; Applicant: Graham James Louis; Applicant: Ferdinand Graham Louis I (by next friends Rosalina Melena Louis and Graham James Louis); Applicant: Rachael Rose Louis (by next friends Rosalina Melena Louis and Graham James Louis); Applicant: Murray Dantel Louis (by next friends Rosalina Melena Louis and Graham James Louis); First Respondent: The Commonwealth of Australia; Second Respondent: Qantas Airways Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 December 1986
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Judgment on Leave to Appeal Application
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Discovery, Legal Professional Privilege, Public Interest Privilege, Leave to Appeal
Civil Procedure Discovery Legal Professional Privilege Public Interest Privilege Leave to Appeal

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rosalina Melena Louis

Applicant

Graham James Louis

Applicant

Ferdinand Graham Louis I (by next friends Rosalina Melena Louis and Graham James Louis)

Applicant

Rachael Rose Louis (by next friends Rosalina Melena Louis and Graham James Louis)

Applicant

Murray Dantel Louis (by next friends Rosalina Melena Louis and Graham James Louis)

Applicant

The Commonwealth of Australia

First Respondent

Qantas Airways Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Judgment on Leave to Appeal Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted from interlocutory orders made by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory regarding discovery and production of documents.
  2. 2 Whether the affidavits of discovery are sufficient or grounds exist for further and better discovery.
  3. 3 Whether claims for legal professional privilege and public interest privilege were properly made.

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicants failed to demonstrate any ground supporting insufficiency of discovery affidavits or miscarriage in the exercise of the Supreme Court’s discretion. Legal principles were correctly applied and established discretion was not shown to have miscarried.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The applicants pay the respondents' costs of the application.