Chief Justice D Mortimer of the Federal Court asked to address issues

 

Colin Dunstan

22 Sentry Crescent

Palmerston ACT 2913

Monday, 28 July 2025 

Email: colingd10@gmail.com 

The Hon. D S Mortimer, Chief Justice, Federal Court of Australia

Federal Court of Australia

Nigel Bowen Commonwealth Law Courts Building

Childers Street

Canberra City ACT 2601

Via email: vicreg@fedcourt.gov.au 


Dear Chief Justice, 

Re: Request for a Full Court hearing of an application for leave to appeal to the Court

And

An order staying or striking out orders made in the judgment the subject of the appeal

Owing to unusual and special circumstances, I ask that you make an order that an application I lodged today be heard before the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. 

I understand this order may be made pursuant to section 25 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, at paragraphs (2)(a) and (2)(e): 

25  Exercise of appellate jurisdiction 

(1) The appellate jurisdiction of the Court shall, subject to this section and to the provisions of any other Act, be exercised by a Full Court.

…

(2) Applications: 

(a) for leave or special leave to appeal to the Court; or 

(b) for an extension of time within which to institute an appeal to the Court; or 

(c) for leave to amend the grounds of an appeal to the Court; or 

(d) to stay an order of a Full Court; 

must be heard and determined by a single Judge unless: 

(e) a Judge directs that the application be heard and determined by a Full Court; or 

(f) the application is made in a proceeding that has already been assigned to a Full Court and the Full Court considers it is appropriate for it to hear and determine the application.


The judgment delivered on 25 July 2025 includes orders (4 to 8) that I request you make an order to immediately stay them or strike them out. 

The grounds for this request are that: 

  1. the orders are contrary to the evidence before the Court and are contrary to the section of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 in which they are purported to rely, and 

  2. the effect of the orders, whether intended or not, is to inflict vexing obstacles upon me: 

    1. I must lodge an application for leave to appeal with 14 days of the decision made on 25 July 2025, dismissing an interlocutory application of some importance to the proceeding, 

    2. I must wait for the indeterminate timetable set by orders 4 to 8 before being able to file another application for leave to appeal. The reasons for the decision to dismiss my proceeding are set out in the judgment made on 25 July 2025 but the effective date is left open but will certainly be after the expiry of the 14 days available for filing an application for leave to appeal a decision that was made effective on 25 July 2025. 

    3. The purported reason for this indeterminate delay is contrary to the evidence before the Court and contrary to the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 on which it is said to rely. 

The postponed decision is in the final paragraph of the reasons for judgment, at [119]: 

For the foregoing reasons, it is appropriate to summarily dismiss Mr Dunstan’s case immediately after determination of the question whether to make an order under s 37AO of the Federal Court Act. 

Striking out the offending orders will immediately establish the effective date of this “postponed” decision to dismiss my application. 

This will allow the Court to hear at the same time only one application for leave to appeal - from both decisions in the judgment of 25 July 2025 – the decision with immediate effect and the decision with an indeterminate effective date sometime in the future. 

It will also assist me in that I will not be required to pay fees for two applications for leave to appeal. 

If the Court or the Respondents believe they have an arguable case for an order pursuant to section 37AO of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 they are at liberty to commence a proceeding for that purpose at any time. 

It does not serve any legitimate purpose to wrap this activity into the present proceedings. It does inflict disadvantages on me. Justice Thawley did not ask me at any time about any thought he may have had about these orders before disclosing them in his judgment on 25 July 2025. 


Yours sincerely, 

Colin Dunstan


Attachments:

  1. Application for Leave to Appeal dated 28 July 2025

  2. Draft Notice of Appeal dated 28 July 2025

  3. Orders dated 25 July 2025

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Applicant's Affidavit of 14 May 2025 - Dunstan v Orr and Others - ACD57 of 2024

Form 59 Rule 29.02(1)                                                                                                                     Affidavit No.       ACD 57 of 2024 Federal Court of Australia District Registry: Australian Capital Territory Division : General COLIN GEORGE DUNSTAN Applicant ROBYN ORR and others Respondents   Affidavit of:...
Read more

Does the Tax Commissioner know how his legal representatives conduct litigation?

Image
Tax Commissioner defends outrageous conduct of legal representatives The legal profession has high standards for how litigation is to be conducted.  The Commissioner of Taxation's website says: "As a government agency, we apply the highest standards of ethical behaviour when we are involved in litigation. ...[We] need to do the right thing, be fair and have the highest professional standards ..." A statement of claim lodged in the Federal Court of Australia recently details unprofessional and unethical conduct by the Tax Commissioner's legal representatives in defending an action alleging serious fraud by senior Tax Office delegates of the Tax Commissioner.  The Tax Commissioner may have acknowledged that his legal representatives had behaved inappropriately - if he was aware of the issue. Instead, a team of legal representatives was sent to the Federal Court of Australia with the unenviable task of devising a way to obstruct, and presumably to defeat the litigation. ...
Read more