A High Court of Australia application for leave

 Documents filed with an Application for Leave to appeal 

An application for leave to appeal from judgement of a High Court justice 
  1. - refusing to grant leave to file an application for constitutional writs 
  2. - to challenge an interlocutory judgment of a Federal Court justice
    • where rights to apply for special leave to appeal have been eliminated in the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976. 
The application for leave to appeal, dated 4 June 2026 - with an introduction => "A long and winding road to overturn a July 2025 Federal Court judgment", from a judgment of Edelman J dated 13 May 2026, that rejected the following application dated 24 April 2026... 

The documents filed with the above application for leave to appeal: 
  1. Order of Edelman J made 15 May 2026, rejecting the application for leave to file an application following a judgment by Gordon J on 24 April 2026 requiring leave to file an application lodged on 22 April 2026. 
  2. Reasons of Edelman J made 13 May 2026, rejecting the application for leave to file an application following a judgment by Gordon J on 24 April 2026 requiring leave to file an application lodged on 22 April 2026. 
  3. Application for Leave to File, dated 24 April 2026, accepted for filing on 28 April 2026 ...that has attached to it an Application for Constitutional Writs dated 17 April 2026 and rejected for filing on 23 April 2026 by Gordon J.
  4. Affidavit, dated 24 April 2026 - filed in support of above application for leave to file an application.
  5. Affidavit, dated 22 April 2026 - initially filed in support of filing the Application for Constitutional Writs attached to document 1 above.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A long and winding road to overturn a July 2025 Federal Court judgment

Image
The Federal Court judgment of Justice Thawley of July 2025 Does the Commissioner of Taxation have a hold over one or more judges of the Federal Court? The Australian Taxation Office has a well-worn tactic to avoid complying with its Model Litigant Obligation.  Under the Legal Services Directions, Commonwealth entities and their lawyers must act as model litigants, which requires maintaining the highest ethical standards. This includes not requiring another party to prove a matter that the Commonwealth knows to be true.  It is said that "The Commonwealth's obligation to act as a model litigant is codified under Part 5, Division 2 of the Legal Services Directions. This duty ensures  [sic, fails to ensure] that the government and its agencies behave with complete propriety, fairness, and honesty in all litigation and civil claims."  In reality it ensues no such thing.  When confronted by a claim supported by evidence that the Commissioner of Taxation has failed to ...
Read more

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

Applicant's submissions on Federal Court proposal to block proceedings

Image
APPLICANT’S SUBMISSIONS  IN RESPONSE TO ORDER 4 MADE BY THAWLEY J ON 25 JULY 2025 No. ACD57 of 2024 Federal Court of Australia District Registry: Australian Capital Territory Division: General COLIN GEORGE DUNSTAN   Applicant ROBYN ORR and others named in the schedule Respondents SUBMISSIONS  These submissions are pursuant to Order 4 of Thawley J made on 25 July 2025:  By 15 August 2025, the applicant is to file any evidence and submissions on which he intends to rely on the question of whether the Court should make an order (s 37AO(2)(b) order) substantially in the following terms:  Pursuant to s 37AO(2)(b) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), Mr Colin George Dunstan be prohibited from instituting proceedings in this Court without making an application for leave to institute proceedings in accordance with s 37AR of the Federal Court Act. The Applicant reads his affidavit and supplementary affidavit, both affirmed 14 M...
Read more