Re Heerey; Ex parte Heinrich [2001] HCA 74

Re Heerey; Ex parte Heinrich [2001] HCA 74

No reasonably arguable case for issuing mandamus was demonstrated; applicant did not establish error of law attracting mandamus, did not seek special leave to appeal, and the complaints were not errors of jurisdiction.

Parties
Applicant: Stephen Glenn Heinrich; Respondent: Peter Cadden Heerey; Respondent: Branson; Respondent: Lindgren
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Application for Writ of Mandamus / Order Refusing Application
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Mandamus, Federal Jurisdiction, Bankruptcy Proceedings, Appeal Process, Jurisdictional Error
Constitutional Law Bankruptcy Mandamus Federal Jurisdiction Bankruptcy Proceedings Appeal Process Jurisdictional Error

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Glenn Heinrich

Applicant

Peter Cadden Heerey

Respondent

Branson

Respondent

Lindgren

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Writ of Mandamus / Order Refusing Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether mandamus may issue against Federal Court judges to vary a prior order regarding bankruptcy proceedings
  2. 2 Whether applicant demonstrated a prima facie or arguable case for mandamus
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's complaints constitute jurisdictional errors

Ratio Decidendi

No reasonably arguable case for issuing mandamus was demonstrated; applicant did not establish error of law attracting mandamus, did not seek special leave to appeal, and the complaints were not errors of jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Application for the writ of mandamus is refused