Coffey v Secretary, Department of Social Security A3/1999 [2002] HCATrans 386 (14 August 2002)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Adelaide No A3 of 1999

B e t w e e n -

PETER MICHAEL COFFEY

Applicant

and

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

GUMMOW J

HAYNE J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT ADELAIDE ON WEDNESDAY, 14 AUGUST 2002, AT 4.16 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR P.M. COFFEY appeared in person.

MS S.J. MAHARAJ: If it please your Honour, I appear for the respondent. (instructed by the Australian Government Solicitor).

GUMMOW J: Yes, Mr Coffey. You have 20 minutes, do you understand? No more than 20 minutes, I should say.

MR COFFEY: Yes.

GUMMOW J: You are seeking to reopen a special leave application.

MR COFFEY: Yes, that is correct.

GUMMOW J: Why?

MR COFFEY: Because I do not think I got a fair go at the original hearing before Justice Mansfield.

GUMMOW J: That is not a reason for having two goes here. We would never stop sitting.

MR COFFEY: Yes. The special leave was refused because there was not sufficient doubt in the Federal Court's decision - - -

GUMMOW J: That is right.

MR COFFEY: - - - and I thought I did not have a chance - - -

GUMMOW J: That happens all the time. A lot of leave applications are disposed of in that way, as you may have heard sitting in Court listening.

MR COFFEY: Yes. My argument is where it is summarily dismissed there should be no doubt in the decision.

GUMMOW J: Well, that is just not the law, I am afraid.

MR COFFEY: Right. Well, in that case, I thought I had raised enough points in my notice of motion but apparently I have not.

GUMMOW J: Very well. Is there anything more you wish to add?

MR COFFEY: I beg your pardon?

GUMMOW J: Is there anything more you wish to add?

MR COFFEY: No, your Honour.

GUMMOW J: Very well, thank you. Yes, Ms Maharaj.

MS MAHARAJ: Your Honours, we do not wish to add anything to our written submissions which we have filed. The legal principle is quite clear in the two authorities that we have mentioned, that it has to be a rare and exceptional case indeed which would warrant a reopening of a special leave application and in this case our short submission, your Honours, is that nothing has been put to the Court in order to demonstrate that there has been any changed circumstances which warrants a reopening.

GUMMOW J: Yes, well, that is the real point, I think, thank you.

MS MAHARAJ: If it please your Honours.

GUMMOW J: The applicant, Mr Coffey, has demonstrated in his written materials, which we have examined, no case for reopening his application for special leave to appeal against a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. That earlier application for special leave was dismissed and Mr Coffey wishes to reargue that earlier outcome in this Court. That is not a ground for reopening earlier dispositions of special leave applications and the motion is dismissed with costs.

AT 4.20 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED