Matson v Attorney-General (No 2)

• Jurisdiction: Australia Federal only
• Judgment Date: 10 March 2022
• Neutral Citation: [2022] FCA 213
• Date: 10 March 2022
• Court: Federal Court

Federal Court of Australia

Matson v Attorney-General (No 2) [2022] FCA 213

Appeal from:	Matson v Attorney-General (Cth) [2021] FCA 161
File number:	QUD 83 of 2021
Judgment of:	COLLIER J
Date of judgment:	10 March 2022
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for summary judgment – whether the applicant’s proposed grounds of appeal have reasonable prospects of success for the purpose of s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – whereas the applicant seeks to reagitate grounds that have been pressed and decided in previous proceedings – whereas the majority of the applicant’s proposed grounds of appeal are subject to res judicata, Anshun estoppel or abuse of process respectively – no reasonable prospects of success on appeal exist – application for summary judgment granted ; PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – appeal from a grant of summary judgement by a single judge of this Court - whether leave to appeal is required – whether this proceeding constitutes an appeal from an interlocutory judgement affecting the liberty of an individual within the meaning s 24(1C) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – question of leave need not be determined in light of the respondents’ application for summary judgment – determination of the summary judgment application by a single judge is permissible in the appellate jurisdiction of this Court per s 25(2B)(aa) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – decision as to the requirement of leave unnecessary
Legislation:	Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Cases cited:	B v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 910 Ali v Chandler Macleod Agency [2017] HCASL 328 Ali v Chandler Macleod Group Ltd [2016] FCA 1234 Buckby v Ark Energy Ltd [2019] FCA 611 Conde v Hunter [2009] FCA 1016 Décor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc [1991] FCA 655; (1991) 33 FCR 397 du Boulay v Worrell [2009] QCA 63 Foster v Minister for Customs and Justice [2000] HCA 38; (2000) 200 CLR 442 Hastwell v Kott Gunning (No 5) [2020] FCA 621 Hastwell v Kott Gunning [2021] FCAFC 70 Jackson v Goldsmith (1950) 81 CLR 446 Jefferson Ford Pty Ltd v Ford Motor Co of Australia Ltd (2008) 167 FCR 372; [2008] FCAFC 60 Krajniw v Newman (No 2) [2015] FCA 673 Le v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 875 Lobban v Minister for Justice [2016] FCAFC 109 Love v Commonwealth; Thoms v Commonwealth [2020] HCA 3 Matson v Attorney-General [2020] FCA 1558 Matson v Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia [2021] FCA 161 Matthews v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCAFC 146 Mentyn v Westpac Banking Corporation [2004] FCAFC 149 Minister of State for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273 Pham v Secretary, Department of Employment & Workplace Relations [2007] FCAFC 179 Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Proprietary Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589 Quach v Commissioner of Taxation [2019] FCA 1729 Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Lam (2003) 214 CLR 1 Reyes v United States of America [2020] FCAFC 149 Rivera v Minister for Justice and Customs [2007] FCAFC 123, (2007) 160 FCR 115 Sami v Commonwealth of Australia [2018] FCA 1991 Sami v The Commonwealth of Australia [2018] FCA 800 Singh v Owners Strata Plan No 11723 (No 4) [2012] FCA 1180 Snedden v Minister for Justice for the Commonwealth of Australia [2014] FCAFC 156 Starkey v State of South Australia [2011] FCA 456 SZSNN v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2013] FCA 1218 Tajjour and New South Wales [2014] HCA 35 Tomlinson v Ramsey Food Processing (2015) 256 CLR 507 Tutos v Roman Catholic Trust Corporation [2020] QCA 171 Vasiljkovic v Commonwealth [2006] HCA 40 Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378 Wang v Anying Group Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 1500 Zambini v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2006] FCA 1773 Zetta Jet Pte. Ltd v The Ship “Dragon Pearl” [2018] FCA 878
Division:	General Division
Registry:	Queensland
National Practice Area:	Federal Crime and Related Proceedings
Number of paragraphs:	163
Date of hearing:	10 February 2022
Solicitor for the Appellant:	The appellant was self-represented
Counsel for the First and Second Respondents:	Mr G del Villar QC with Mr M McKechnie
Solicitor for the First and Second Respondents:	Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

		QUD 83 of 2021
BETWEEN:	BARON MATSON Appellant
AND:	THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE COMMOWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA First Respondent ; THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Second Respondent ; THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA THE HONOURABLE DONALD J TRUMP (and others named in the Schedule) Third Respondent

order made by:	COLLIER J
DATE OF ORDER:	10 March 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Pursuant to ss 25(2B)(aa) and 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), judgment be given in favour of the First and Second Respondents in relation to the whole of the application for leave to appeal filed on 15 March 2021.

2. The applicant pay the costs of the respondents, such costs to be taxed if not otherwise agreed.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

COLLIER J:

1. Before the Court is an interlocutory application filed by the first and second respondents (summary judgment application) seeking summary judgment in their favour in respect of Mr Matson’s application for leave to appeal from a decision delivered on 3 March 2021 in Matson v Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia [2021] FCA 161. Specifically, the respondents seek the following orders:

1. Pursuant to ss 25(2B)(aa) or 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (the FCA) or rule 26.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (the FCR), judgment...