Trevor Kingsley Ferdinands v Minister for Defence

TREVOR KINGSLEY FERDINANDS
v
MINISTER FOR DEFENCE
[2013] HCASL 60
A35/2012

The applicant filed an application for an order to show cause directed to the Minister for Defence. He claimed relief arising out of the Minister's failure to respond to a letter requesting access to certain documents. The documents related to an inquiry concerning the applicant's conviction in November 1999 by a Defence Force Magistrate.
The Minister applied to have the application summarily dismissed[1].
[1]High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), r 27.09.4.
The applicant did not appear on the return of the Minister's summons. Crennan J held that the letter was not a valid request for access to documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth). Her Honour considered that the material filed in support of the application for an order to show cause was barely intelligible and disclosed no ground for the grant of the relief sought. The proceedings were dismissed with costs.
The applicant applies for leave to appeal from Crennan J's order. He requires a modest extension of time to do so[2]. The applicant has filed an affidavit satisfactorily explaining his failure to comply with the time for filing the application. The requirement of the Rules should be dispensed with.
[2]High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), rr 2.02 and 41.02.1. Crennan J's order was made on 24 October 2012. The application was filed on 27 November 2012.
The application does not disclose an arguable ground of appeal. Nothing in the application and the summary of argument call into question the correctness of Crennan J's order.
The application is dismissed.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

V.M. Bell
8 May 2013 S.J. Gageler

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Trevor Kingsley Ferdinands sought judicial review of a decision by Crennan J to dismiss his application for an order to show cause against the Minister for Defence. The applicant's application was based on the Minister's failure to respond to a letter requesting access to certain documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth). These documents related to an inquiry concerning the applicant's conviction in November 1999 by a Defence Force Magistrate. Crennan J dismissed the application and found that the letter was not a valid request for access to documents under the Freedom of Information Act. The applicant's material in support of the application was deemed barely intelligible and did not disclose any ground for the grant of the relief sought. The proceedings were dismissed with costs. The applicant now seeks leave to appeal from Crennan J's order, requiring a modest extension of time to do so.

The court had to determine whether the application disclosed an arguable ground of appeal. The applicant argued that Crennan J's order was incorrect because the letter he sent to the Minister was a valid request for access to documents under the Freedom of Information Act. However, the court found that the application did not disclose an arguable ground of appeal. The applicant's argument did not call into question the correctness of Crennan J's order. The court held that the application was dismissed.

The court's reasoning was that the applicant's argument did not call into question the correctness of Crennan J's order. The court found that the applicant's material in support of the application was barely intelligible and did not disclose any ground for the grant of the relief sought. The court held that the application was dismissed with costs.

The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and directed the Registrar to draw up, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application. The court held that the application did not disclose an arguable ground of appeal and that the applicant's argument did not call into question the correctness of Crennan J's order. The court found that the application was dismissed with costs.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established