Ogle,W. & Anor v Strickland, J. & Ors [1986] FCA 325

Ogle,W. & Anor v Strickland, J. & Ors [1986] FCA 325

The applicants, although ministers of religion, do not possess a special interest in the matter beyond that of ordinary members of the public who share concern regarding the censorship of blasphemous films; therefore, they lack standing to bring this application for judicial review. The absence of any threat to tangible proprietary or possessory interests further undermines standing. Summary dismissal pursuant to Order 20, rule 2 is appropriate as the applicants' position regarding standing is untenable.

Parties
Applicant: Walter Ogle; Applicant: Anor (second applicant); Respondent: Janet Strickland; Respondent: Ors (other respondents, including members of the Censorship Board); Respondent: Third respondent (importer of the film)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 August 1986
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Motion to Dismiss and Application to Expedite Interlocutory Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed for want of standing
Legal Topics
Standing to Sue, Blasphemy and Censorship, Summary Dismissal, Reasonable Time to Bring Application
Administrative Law Judicial Review Standing to Sue Blasphemy and Censorship Summary Dismissal Reasonable Time to Bring 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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Walter Ogle

Applicant

Anor (second applicant)

Applicant

Janet Strickland

Respondent

Ors (other respondents, including members of the Censorship Board)

Respondent

Third respondent (importer of the film)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application / Motion to Dismiss and Application to Expedite Interlocutory Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for judicial review was brought within a reasonable time under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977
  2. 2 Whether the applicants (ministers of religion) have standing to seek judicial review of the Censorship Board's decision to approve and register the film as not being blasphemous
  3. 3 Whether summary dismissal is appropriate in circumstances where standing is at issue

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants, although ministers of religion, do not possess a special interest in the matter beyond that of ordinary members of the public who share concern regarding the censorship of blasphemous films; therefore, they lack standing to bring this application for judicial review. The absence of any threat to tangible proprietary or possessory interests further undermines standing. Summary dismissal pursuant to Order 20, rule 2 is appropriate as the applicants' position regarding standing is untenable.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed for want of standing

Orders

  • The application be dismissed.
  • The applicants pay the first and second respondents their costs of the notice of motion filed on 25 July 1986.