Priestley v Godwin [2008] HCA 59

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FRENCH CJ

MICHAEL PRIESTLEY PLAINTIFF

AND

ANNWYN GODWIN, PARLIAMENTARY SERVICE

MERIT PROTECTION COMMISSIONER & ORS DEFENDANTS

Priestley v Godwin [2008] HCA 59

17 December 2008

C7/2008

ORDER

1. The application is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff is to pay the first to third defendants' costs of the application.

Representation

The plaintiff appeared in person

Mr G R Kennett for the first, second and third defendants (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)

Submitting appearance for the fourth and fifth defendants

Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

CATCHWORDS

Priestley v Godwin

Administrative law – Practice and procedure – Prerogative writs – Proceedings collateral to application under s 13(1) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) – Application by respondent for summary dismissal – Application for judge's recusal – Allegations of bias – Validity of s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – Validity of O 20 r 5 of the Federal Court Rules.

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 31A.

Federal Court Rules, O 20 r 5.

FRENCH CJ.

Introduction

1. On 14 July 2008 the plaintiff, Michael Priestley, an employee of the Department of Parliamentary Services, filed an application in this Court for an order to show cause why prohibition should not issue against two judges of the Federal Court of Australia to prevent them from further hearing proceedings which he had commenced in that Court on 3 January 2008. Other relief sought included certiorari to quash decisions of the judges declining to disqualify themselves from hearing the case and a declaration that motions filed in that Court were "invalid". 2. In the Federal Court Mr Priestley sought orders requiring provision of reasons for decisions made by the Parliamentary Service Merit Protection Commissioner ("the Merit Protection Commissioner") and by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate ("the Presiding Officers"). The decisions were said to relate to Mr Priestley's endeavours to obtain review of an action relating to his employment. 3. Mr Priestley wants his application to show cause to be referred to the Full Court of this Court. For the reasons that follow I regard the application as devoid of merit. It will be dismissed with costs.