Bevan Alan Mowen v Queensland State Government

BEVAN ALAN MOWEN
v
QUEENSLAND STATE GOVERNMENT
[2011] HCASL 190
B41/2011

The applicant seeks special leave to appeal to this Court against the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland (Fraser JA, Wilson AJA and Mullins J), which affirmed the decision of the primary judge (McMeekin J) dismissing an application for an injunction on 31 January 2011.
The applicant sought an injunction against a party identified as the "Queensland State Government", seeking to compel the holding of a referendum to enquire into the sale of Queensland Rail.
On 3 February 2011, the primary judge dismissed the application for an injunction on three grounds. First, there is no such entity as the "Queensland State Government". Section 8 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1980 (Q) requires that any proceedings brought against the Crown in the right of the State must be brought against the Crown under the title of "State of Queensland". Second, the Supreme Court lacks inherent jurisdiction to order the government of the State to hold a referendum about such a matter. Third, even if the Court had jurisdiction to intervene, his Honour expressed doubt that the applicant would have standing to apply for such an order.
On 21 June 2011, the Court of Appeal affirmed the primary judge's reasons and noted that the applicant wished to advance arguments similar to those he put at first instance. The Court of Appeal added that the applicant did not have standing to apply for a mandatory injunction and dismissed the appeal.
The applicant seeks to re-agitate in this Court, the same grounds of appeal he raised before the Court at first instance and requires an extension of time in order to advance these arguments. There are no prospects of the applicant demonstrating error in the decision of the Court of Appeal. We would grant an extension of time but refuse to grant special leave to appeal.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

W.M.C. Gummow
1 December 2011 S.M. Kiefel

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bevan Alan Mowen filed an application for special leave to appeal against the Queensland State Government to the High Court, following a decision by the Supreme Court of Queensland's Court of Appeal. The applicant sought an injunction to compel the government to hold a referendum regarding the sale of Queensland Rail. The primary judge, McMeekin J, dismissed the application on three grounds: the "Queensland State Government" is not a legal entity, the Supreme Court lacks the inherent jurisdiction to order a referendum, and the applicant likely did not have standing to apply for such an order. The Court of Appeal upheld the primary judge's decision, and the applicant sought to appeal to the High Court.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the "Queensland State Government" is a valid entity for legal proceedings, whether the Supreme Court has inherent jurisdiction to order a referendum, and whether the applicant had standing to apply for such an order. The Court of Appeal had already affirmed the primary judge's reasoning, and the applicant sought to re-argue these points before the High Court.

The High Court noted that the applicant was seeking to re-agitate the same arguments before the Court, and that there were no prospects of demonstrating error in the Court of Appeal's decision. The Court granted an extension of time for the applicant to advance these arguments but refused to grant special leave to appeal. The Court directed the Registrar to draw up, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application. The High Court did not find any merit in the applicant's arguments and found that the Court of Appeal's decision was correct. The Court's decision was final, and the applicant's appeal was dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established