Kinkead, Francis W v Caboolture Shire Council [1995] FCA 973

Federal Court of Australia

Document text

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA)No. QG 143 of 1995 QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: FRANCIS W. KINKEAD Applicant AND: CABOOLTURE SHIRE COUNCIL Respondent MINUTES OF ORDERS JUDGE MAKING ORDER: Drummond J DATE OF ORDER: 24 November, 1995 WHERE MADE: Brisbane THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The applicant's amended application be struck out. 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to today. NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA) No. QG 143 of 1995 QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: FRANCIS W. KINKEAD Applicant AND: CABOOLTURE SHIRE COUNCIL Respondent Coram: Drummond J Date: 24 November, 1995 Place: Brisbane REASONS FOR JUDGMENT On 13 October, 1995 an application filed by Mr. Kinkead came before me. The only relief sought was relief pursuant to various provisions of the Australian Constitution. Mr. Kinkead's concerns arise out of the conduct of the Caboolture Shire Council which might - and I say nothing more than that - be capable of amounting to an actionable trespass. This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. It cannot deal with each and every claim that a litigant may wish to agitate before a tribunal. It can only deal with those claims that it has jurisdiction to deal with under statutes which confer jurisdiction on it. None of the claims that Mr. Kinkead brought in his original application based upon the Constitution are claims that this Court had jurisdiction to deal with. Accordingly, I struck out his entire application on 13 October last, but gave him leave to amend the application to claim relief for trespass or any such other relief as he might see fit to claim. He has not done that. Instead, Mr. Kinkead has amended the application, but only by expanding the description of the claims that he originally brought based upon the Constitution. This Court having no jurisdiction to deal with these claims, I strike out his amended application. I certify that this and the preceding one page are a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Drummond. Associate: Date: 24 November, 1995

Read full text →

Official source

We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.

Not checked yet

Last checked with source on —

Open official source

Checking whether the official page can be embedded…

Study brief

Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.

Unknown

No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.

You've got 21 of 22 free Acts left this visit. Sign up anytime for Facts, Related, and study briefs too.

Document text

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA)No. QG 143 of 1995 QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: FRANCIS W. KINKEAD Applicant AND: CABOOLTURE SHIRE COUNCIL Respondent MINUTES OF ORDERS JUDGE MAKING ORDER: Drummond J DATE OF ORDER: 24 November, 1995 WHERE MADE: Brisbane THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The applicant's amended application be struck out. 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to today. NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA) No. QG 143 of 1995 QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: FRANCIS W. KINKEAD Applicant AND: CABOOLTURE SHIRE COUNCIL Respondent Coram: Drummond J Date: 24 November, 1995 Place: Brisbane REASONS FOR JUDGMENT On 13 October, 1995 an application filed by Mr. Kinkead came before me. The only relief sought was relief pursuant to various provisions of the Australian Constitution. Mr. Kinkead's concerns arise out of the conduct of the Caboolture Shire Council which might - and I say nothing more than that - be capable of amounting to an actionable trespass. This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. It cannot deal with each and every claim that a litigant may wish to agitate before a tribunal. It can only deal with those claims that it has jurisdiction to deal with under statutes which confer jurisdiction on it. None of the claims that Mr. Kinkead brought in his original application based upon the Constitution are claims that this Court had jurisdiction to deal with. Accordingly, I struck out his entire application on 13 October last, but gave him leave to amend the application to claim relief for trespass or any such other relief as he might see fit to claim. He has not done that. Instead, Mr. Kinkead has amended the application, but only by expanding the description of the claims that he originally brought based upon the Constitution. This Court having no jurisdiction to deal with these claims, I strike out his amended application. I certify that this and the preceding one page are a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Drummond. Associate: Date: 24 November, 1995

Read full text →