Dudzinski, Re [2000] QSC 249

Reporting . TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDiNGS Copyright in this transcript is vested in the Crown. Copies thereof must not be made or sold without the written authority of the Director, State Reporting Bureau. SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CIVIL JURISDICTION BYRNE J RE APPLICATION BY WALDEMAR DUDZINSKI and ANNA DUDZINSKI BRISBANE .. DATE 11/07/2000 JUDGMENT REVISED COPfES ISSUED State Reporting Bureau Date I I / oo I ·1·1 1 · c · c· s · · l""r, 1..: .:1w 1111rts, ,t·111·gt· ln:<.:I, llnsl,:111,:, Q. -HIIHJ Tdcplr1111,:: (fl7J J.?.-17 -060 F:n: (07) J.?.-17 5~J2 l -- 1 of 3 -- 11072000 T23/RB28 M/T 7554/:W00 (Byrne J) HIS HONOUR: This applicatioll is brought ex parte seeking orders nisi in the nature of prerogative remedies and a stay pending judicial review of decisions of judicial officers. Ordinarily, I would be disinclined to entertain such an application without notice to the parties sought to be affected. But in the view I take of the lack of merits of the application, I shall shortly state my reasons for refusing leave to read and file the originating application, 10 Exhibit 1 . 20 The essential circumstances are these. The first respondent, who is a magistrate, made an order on 24 February 2000 apparently affecting the interests of both applicants. An appeal was taken from this decision to a Judge of the District Court who on 1 7 May 2000 dismissed it. The second respondent, I gather, granted summary judgment on 19 May against both applicants. Each of them was ordered to pay in excess of $5,000. No appeal has been brought against the judgments. But there are rights of appeal to the District Court against them. Those appeal rights have not been availed of. But that is no reason for this Court to intervene by orders in the nature of a prerogative remedy or, if available, by judicial review. 2 JUDGMENT 30 40 50 60 -- 2 of 3 -- 11072000 T23/RB28 M/T 7554/:W00 (Byrne J) There are adequate rights of appeal. As I have said, to some extent they have already been taken advantage of. In these circumstances, I am not satisfied that there is a fairly arguable basis for supposing that the Court might exercise a discretion to intervene by an order in the nature of a prerogative remedy or by judicial review. As the application would, if filed, inevitably have been 10 dismissed, the order I shall make is that leave to file the 20 application be refused. 30 40 50 60 3 JUDGMENT -- 3 of 3 --