Marion Louise Collier v State of New South Wales

[2015] HCASL 132

MARION LOUISE COLLIER

v

STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES

[2015] HCASL 132
S80/2015

1. The applicant commenced proceedings against the respondent in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.  Campbell J summarily dismissed the proceedings on the ground that they did not disclose a reasonable cause of action, the applicant having already been given the opportunity to re-plead her claim following an earlier application for summary dismissal by the respondent.  The applicant filed a summons seeking leave to appeal from that order and, subsequently, a notice of motion which sought, among other things, leave to file and serve a subpoena on a third party.  A Registrar refused the subpoena application.  Leeming JA dismissed an application for review of the Registrar's orders, and refused to grant other subpoenas and relief sought by the applicant.

2. The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Basten, Macfarlan and Emmett JJA) refused the applicant leave to appeal from Campbell J’s orders summarily dismissing the proceedings and dismissed an application to discharge or vary the orders of Leeming JA.  The Court held that there was no error in the summary dismissal of the proceedings because the statement of claim did not disclose any legitimate cause of action and it was inconceivable that a coherent trial could eventuate.  The Court also held that there was no basis on which to discharge or vary the orders of Leeming JA because, in the absence of a cognisable cause of action, a subpoena could serve no legitimate forensic purpose.  The Court dismissed other notices of motion filed by the applicant, including one seeking to remove a Registrar from further involvement in the proceedings, and another seeking an order that a recording of proceedings before a Registrar be played in court.  The applicant now seeks special leave to appeal against the orders of the Court of Appeal.

3. The applicant does not have legal representation. The application therefore falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth).

4. The decision of the Court of Appeal involved the resolution of matters of practice and procedure by the application of well-settled principles.  Nothing in the applicant's application casts doubt on the correctness of the decision or suggests that there is a question of public importance which warrants a grant of special leave.  The application is dismissed.

5. Pursuant to r 41.10.5, we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

V.M. Bell
13 August 2015 S.J. Gageler