In the matter of an application by GAYE LUCK for leave to appeal

in the matter of an application by GAYE LUCK for leave to appeal
[2022] HCASL 177
M80/2020

On 4 August 2020, Bell J refused the applicant's ex parte application for leave to issue or file a proposed writ of summons in M19 of 2020 on the grounds that the applicant appeared to be seeking to challenge decisions of the Federal Court of Australia and that to permit the applicant to prosecute the proceeding would be to permit her to bypass the ordinary mechanisms of appeal and potentially avoid the restrictions imposed by statute on appeals to this Court from certain decisions of the Federal Court[1]; the particulars given of the proposed claims were incoherent; no arguable basis was disclosed for any of the relief sought and it would be an abuse of the process of the Court if the matter were permitted to proceed. An appeal to this Court would enjoy no prospect of success. Leave to appeal should be refused.
[1] Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 33(1) and (4B)(a).
Pursuant to r 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

P.A. Keane
13 October 2022 M.M. Gordon

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court was asked to decide whether Gaye Luck should be granted leave to appeal the refusal of her application for leave to appeal. The original application was for leave to file a writ of summons in relation to decisions of the Federal Court, which Bell J refused on the grounds that it appeared to challenge those decisions directly and there was no arguable basis for any of the relief sought. The applicant sought leave to appeal the refusal of her application, arguing that it was an abuse of process for Bell J to refuse her application without giving her an opportunity to be heard. The court had to decide whether there was an arguable basis for the relief sought and whether the application for leave to appeal had any prospect of success.

The court found that there was no arguable basis for the relief sought in the original application and that the applicant had not demonstrated that there was any error in the refusal of that application. The court held that the applicant had not identified any arguable error in the original decision and that the application for leave to appeal was bound to fail. The court noted that the original decision was well reasoned and that the applicant had not provided any grounds for the court to consider that there was an arguable error in that decision. The court concluded that the application for leave to appeal had no prospect of success and that it would be an abuse of the court's process to allow the matter to proceed further.

The High Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that there was no arguable basis for the relief sought and that the application had no prospect of success. The court noted that the original decision was well reasoned and that the applicant had not provided any grounds for the court to consider that there was an arguable error in that decision. The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated any error in the refusal of her application and that the application for leave to appeal was bound to fail. The court found that the application for leave to appeal was an abuse of process and that it should be dismissed. The Registrar was directed to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established