Quall v Northern Territory of Australia [2010] FCA 417

Quall v Northern Territory of Australia [2010] FCA 417

The oral application was refused because Mr Quall had not attended, did not seek the material, and had not indicated support for Mr Collins seeking it on his behalf; more importantly, the Howard Springs application stood dismissed and there was no real purpose in benefiting Mr Quall in that application unless and until the High Court granted special leave and the appeal succeeded so that the application was reinstated.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 April 2010
Procedural Posture
Federal Court Application / Oral Application by Respondent Party for Access to an Affidavit
Outcome
Application presently refused, with leave to renew if specified High Court special leave and appeal conditions are satisfied.
Legal Topics
['access to Affidavit Filed in Another Matter' 'use of Respondent Status for Extraneous Purpose' 'effect of Dismissed Proceedings Pending Special Leave Application']
['civil Procedure'] ['access to Affidavit Filed in Another Matter' 'use of Respondent Status for Extraneous Purpose' 'effect of Dismissed Proceedings Pending Special Leave Application']

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 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Federal Court Application / Oral Application by Respondent Party for Access to an Affidavit

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Vincent Collins should be given access to the affidavit of John S. Hicks apparently filed in a different matter' "Whether the application should be considered while Mr Quall's claims, including the Howard Springs application, stood dismissed subject to possible reinstatement after a High Court special leave application and appeal"]

Ratio Decidendi

The oral application was refused because Mr Quall had not attended, did not seek the material, and had not indicated support for Mr Collins seeking it on his behalf; more importantly, the Howard Springs application stood dismissed and there was no real purpose in benefiting Mr Quall in that application unless and until the High Court granted special leave and the appeal succeeded so that the application was reinstated.

Court Disposition

Application presently refused, with leave to renew if specified High Court special leave and appeal conditions are satisfied.

Orders

  • ['The application is presently refused.' 'Leave is given to Mr Collins, as a respondent party in the Howard Springs application, to renew the application if the High Court gives Mr Quall special leave to appeal from the decisions dismissing the Howard Springs application and, if leave is granted, Mr Quall is...