Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Australia Transcripts

You are here: 

Rana v Marshall, Mansfield & Stone JJ & Ors [ 2007] HCATrans 189  (4 May 2007)

Last Updated: 5 June 2007

 [2007] HCATrans 189 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Adelaide No A48 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

RANJIT SHAMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA

Plaintiff

and

MARSHALL, MANSFIELD AND STONE JJ

First Defendant

FINN J

Second Defendant

DEPUTY PRESIDENT D.G. JARVIS AND MEMBER DR E.T. ERIKSEN

Third Defendant

THE MILITARY REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION COMMISSION

Fourth Defendant

CRENNAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

FROM MELBOURNE BY VIDEO LINK TO ADELAIDE

ON FRIDAY, 4 MAY 2007, AT 10.01 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

__________________

MR R.S.J.B. RANA appeared in person.

MS S.J. MAHARAJ, QC: If the Court pleases, I appear for the fourth defendant. (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)

HER HONOUR: Yes, Mr Rana.

MR RANA: Yes, your Honour. The proceeding is that I want to draw issue of whatever is not put before the courts below and it can be raised for the first time in the High Court notwithstanding that this may seem at odds with the nature of a strict appeal, Crampton v The Queen [2000] HCA 60; (2000) 206 CLR 161 at 172 per Gleeson CJ, 182, 184, per Gaudron, Gummow and Callinan JJ and 214 per Hayne J.

I strictly want to raise issues on the jurisdictional error that the Tribunal from the start did not remain neutral in my case. I think they were in collusion with member of the Tribunal as well – because the member, as well as Administrative Appeals Tribunal, her sister was a neighbour of mine and there was a dispute between her sister and me and she had tried to put me under a guardianship and also that she is a member of the Guardianship Board of South Australia and she was in communication with my......Dr Hoff and between 2001 and 2004 when the Tribunal was there there was a lot of issues that I have discovered after the trial.

That is issue number one and issue number two is that the Deputy President Jarvis he ought not had to sit in that Tribunal because he was an adversary solicitor in Kelly & Co, did not disqualified and I did not know that he was in that case a long time ago. I only realised after the matter had started. There was a difficulty and then other matter proceeded and my main concern was that I sought a summons from the Australian Federal Police and he denied me the scope of the summons and in recent time when we have come to learn that the Federal Police have lied they only said that they sourced all of their database but these days that I have come to know from another case called Beesley that actually the Federal Police has access to those records that they have not produced and they have created a subterfuge in another matter which is also before you, your Honour, my matter against the Australian Federal Police.

Of the two databases that I have come to learn about is what they call CrimTrac and a national network police accident database. The expert on the Australian Federal Police before the Tribunal and in various affidavits never mentioned specifically those databases, but we say that they have done search on all databases. Now, when you generalise it and create specific answer, that itself is negligence and abuse of process, a question of law. Excuse me.

MS MAHARAJ: Your Honour - - -

MR RANA: I am talking, all right. You sit down.

MS MAHARAJ: Your Honour, if I may assist, this matter is only listed for a directions hearing today and it appears that Mr Rana may be roaming into substantive submissions.

HER HONOUR: In fact, it is, in essence, an application for orders nisi for prerogative writs so I expect Mr Rana has almost completed this point and I will let him continue for the moment. Yes, Mr Rana.

MR RANA: Yes, your Honour. So, all they have presented in a construction of.....for the Tribunal and then, of course, the Federal Court judges as supervisors but not know anything about nitty-gritty of the Internet or databases and they assume that everything the Federal Police expert had said does not suffice their understanding in the nature that if they said they have done everything by construction, construction by whom? By themselves? First in their sweeping statement, they never told what that two databases I found in recent times based on those Beesley v Federal Police databases and..... Now the Federal Police are saying that is not the issue, your Honour, so I am bringing all this - - -

HER HONOUR: Yes. Mr Rana, that does not seem to be relevant to this particular application.

MR RANA: Well, all I am saying is that had I been given permission by the Tribunal in issuing of the summons, it would have helped a lot in my case. Because I was denied that summons, therefore the Tribunal found adversely against me and then subsequent appeals they found no merit and therefore I am raising this for the first time.

HER HONOUR: I think I understand what the basis of your application is, so thank you, Mr Rana.

MR RANA: Thank you.

HER HONOUR: I will hear from Ms Maharaj.

MS MAHARAJ: If it please your Honour. Your Honour, our understanding was that the matter was listed for a directions hearing and this is contained in a letter to the High Court sent out on 17 April 2007, however, if your Honour is taking substantive submissions on the matter, I am in a position to address your Honour very shortly on the points raised.

HER HONOUR: Yes. Could you just remind me by whom you are briefed?

MS MAHARAJ: The Australian Government Solicitor, your Honour, acting for the Chief of Army, the third respondent in the matter.

HER HONOUR: Yes, thank you. I am treating this, as I mentioned, as an application for an order nisi and I would invite you to make such submissions as you wish in that context.

MS MAHARAJ: Yes, your Honour. It appears from the documents filed by the applicant that the applicant is calling upon the respondents to show cause in the matter. What we bring to your Honour’s attention is rule 25.03.3 which indicates that:

On the hearing of an application for an order to show cause a Justice may order that:

(a) the application be dismissed –

and we would respectfully ask, your Honour, to move under that rule because there is no merit in the application filed by the applicant. Your Honour will see that this matter has travelled through the Tribunal and has been appealed to a single judge of the Federal Court and upon failure before the single judge of the Federal Court the applicant appealed to the Full Court of the Federal Court. The Full Court of the Federal Court has given substantial reasons rejecting each of the arguments raised by the applicant in this matter. We would respectfully submit that on the documents filed by the applicant no arguable case is disclosed.

Furthermore, your Honour would have to be convinced that what is raised is a jurisdictional error and no such jurisdictional error seems to be disclosed on the papers filed by the applicant in any cogent sort of a way. Accordingly, your Honour, we would respectfully ask your Honour to dismiss the application with costs.

HER HONOUR: Are you seeking costs?

MS MAHARAJ: Those are my instructions, your Honour. I can take some further instructions, your Honour.

HER HONOUR: No. Very well. Thank you.

This is an application filed on 21 September 2005 for orders nisi for certiorari and mandamus against three judges sitting as the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, a single judge of the Federal Court of Australia, two members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and a delegate of Comcare.

On August 2001 the plaintiff made a claim against Comcare for rehabilitation and compensation for various claims, psychological and medical conditions. A delegate of Comcare rejected the claim in September 2001. The plaintiff applied for a review of that decision to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. On 6 May 2004 the Tribunal determined that the plaintiff was not entitled to compensation pursuant to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 in respect of the conditions of paranoid psychosis and post-traumatic stress disorder.

The plaintiff appealed this decision under section 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunals Act 1975 (Cth) to the Federal Court. There Justice Finn dismissed the application with costs. His Honour noted:

I have been unable at the end of the day to discern in what Mr Rana alleges any question of law which should in the circumstances be decided in his favour. His claims, in the main, do not rise above what are in substance challenges to the merits of individual findings and conclusions notwithstanding that the language in which those challenges are cast often reflects well-known grounds of judicial review.

His Honour made reference to Rana v The Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission [2005] FCA 6 at paragraph 3. The plaintiff then appealed this decision to the Full Court of the Federal Court where it was unanimously dismissed with costs on 18 May 2005. The court observed that no ground of appeal raised by Mr Rana deals with any intelligible legal error in the reasoning of the judge below.

Justices Marshall, Mansfield and Stone, the first defendants, and Justice Finn, the second defendant, have filed submitting appearances. The third defendants, Deputy President D.G. Jarvis and Member Dr E.T. Eriksen of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal have also filed submitting appearances. Counsel has appeared today on behalf of the fourth defendant and she has submitted that the application be dismissed.

The grounds on which the plaintiff claims relief include bias, surprise, undue intervention, irrelevant considerations, denial of natural justice, jurisdictional error, factual errors, unreasonableness, collusion and unsatisfactory reasons. In the course of the proceedings through the appellate structure of the courts below the complaints made by the plaintiff are of a kind that could have been advanced as grounds of appeal to this Court by way of an application for special leave. In these circumstances, the relief now sought should be refused: see, for example, R v Cook; Ex parte Twigg [1980] HCA 36; (1980) 147 CLR 15, R v Ross-Jones; Ex parte Green (1984) 156 CLR 185.

The submissions of the plaintiff reveal no grounds for the grant of relief sought nor is there anything in the materials that the plaintiff has filed which would support any arguable ground for the grant of relief. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff’s application for an order nisi from this Court should be dismissed.

The order of the Court is: application for order nisi dismissed with costs to be paid to the fourth defendant, Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission, by the applicant.

MS MAHARAJ: Your Honour, with your permission, may I just attend to some procedural problems that the fourth defendant had in this matter?

HER HONOUR: Certainly.

MS MAHARAJ: The first matter, your Honour, if we could seek an amendment to the name of the fourth defendant. The correct defendant should have been the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission, your Honour. That is what the legislation requires in challenges like this.

HER HONOUR: I see. So, it is the Military?

MS MAHARAJ: The Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission ought to be the fourth defendant, not Mr Paul Reis.

HER HONOUR: Yes, very well. I will make that amendment and that will be made consequentially in the reasons for judgment as well. In other words, the references to Mr Paul Reis will be now changed to read the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission.

MS MAHARAJ: Thank you, your Honour. The other procedural defect of the summons, your Honour, is that the fourth defendant in this matter had filed a submitting appearance which was Form 7. However, the fourth defendant has appeared to oppose the application of the applicant, therefore, could we please seek leave from your Honour in order to withdraw the Form 7 appearance that has been filed and to replace it with an appearance in accordance with Form 8 which gives the fourth - - -

HER HONOUR: Very well. Yes. That will be noted.

MS MAHARAJ: If it please your Honour, those are the matters.

HER HONOUR: Nothing further. Thank you.

AT 10.16 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED