Henderson v Andrews [2005] HCATrans 178 (21 March 2005)

--

Henderson v Andrews [2005] HCATrans 178 (21 March 2005)

Last Updated: 5 April 2005

[2005] HCATrans 178

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B32 of 2004

B e t w e e n -

JOHN WILLIAM HENDERSON

Applicant

and

MARK GREGORY ANDREWS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

GUMMOW J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT BRISBANE ON MONDAY, 21 MARCH 2005, AT 11.46 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR P.J. DAVIS: Your Honour, I appear on behalf of the respondent. (instructed by Queensland Police Service Solicitor)

GUMMOW J: Yes, Mr Davis. There is an application for adjournment here. Do you know about that?

MR DAVIS: It has just been handed to me, your Honour.

GUMMOW J: Would you like a minute to consider it? I see you are in the next matter too so we cannot call that.

MR DAVIS: Your Honour, the matter has been set down for some time. It was a couple of weeks ago that the matter was set down. There is really only one question of procedure involved in - - -

GUMMOW J: It seems to be a question of statutory construction, in the end.

MR DAVIS: Yes, which is perhaps a procedural issue more than anything else. In my submission, the applicant has furnished the Court with an outline of argument, detailed argument settled by senior counsel. In my submission, there would be no injustice in proceeding today. Other than that - - -

GUMMOW J: Yes, we note that the written outline, page 73, was settled by senior counsel. Yes, thank you, Mr Davis.

MR DAVIS: Your Honour, the - - -

GUMMOW J: Just a minute. Is there anything else you want to say on the matter of Henderson?

MR DAVIS: No, your Honour.

GUMMOW J: The Court has considered the applicant’s written submissions in this matter, which were settled by senior counsel. These indicate that an appeal to this Court would turn upon the question whether, as a matter of statutory construction, the appeal to the District Court had been competent. Upon that question, we consider that notwithstanding what is said in the written submissions referred to, the judgment of Justice McPherson in the Queensland Court of Appeal was correct. Accordingly, it is appropriate to proceed with the matter today, and, for those reasons, special leave to appeal is refused.

AT 11.49 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED