"Except in the most exceptional circumstances, it would be

contrary to all principle to allow a party, after a case had

been decided against him, to raise a new argument which,

whether deliberately or by inadvertence, he failed to put

during the hearing when he had an opportunity to do so."

[1982] HCA 41; 149 CLR 672, at p 684):

"Generally speaking, (the jurisdiction) will not be

exercised unless the applicant can show that by accident

without fault on his part he has not been heard."

2. The purpose of the jurisdiction is not to provide a means by which unsuccessful litigants can seek to re-argue their cases.

3. In this case, the applicant, who appears in person, relies principally on two matters in support of the relief which he now claims. Those matters are:

(1) that the Court did not deal specifically with 41 points

raised in a Notice of Contention which the applicant filed

in the appeal; and

(2) that the Court was wrong in holding that there was an

abuse of process.

4. The short answer to the first matter on which the applicant relies is that the 41 points in the Notice of Contention were disavowed in argument by counsel for the applicant, except to the extent that they were adopted by counsel in the general submissions that he put to the Court and which were dealt with in the judgments. In the course of argument during the appeal, the Chief Justice specifically asked counsel for the respondent:

"What about this notice of contention, Mr Cassidy? ...

Before you answer, I should make it clear that I am not

inviting you to address us at any length on it."

"Your Honour, I did not intend to put any arguments to the

Court other than those which we have put, some of which have

perhaps adopted some points that were not dealt with in the

court. I do not know whether it was obvious from the typing

that the notice of contention was not of my authorship."

To the extent that the points of contention were taken up in the oral submissions put to the Court, they were dealt with in the judgments; and, to the extent that the points in the Notice of Contention were not raised by counsel, that was the consequence of a deliberate decision not to raise them or not to take the opportunity to raise them.

5. The applicant's submission that the Court was wrong in holding that there was an abuse of process is no more than an attempt to reagitate the case that was presented by counsel on his behalf on the hearing of the appeal. For that reason it does not constitute a ground for the exercise of the jurisdiction which the applicant seeks to invoke.