Fokas, In the matter of an application for leave to issue or file [2020] HCATrans 99 (20 July 2020)

Last Updated: 20 July 2020

[2020] HCATrans 099

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S48 of 2020

In the matter of -

an application by MARIA FOKAS for leave to issue or file

GORDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

FROM MELBOURNE BY VIDEO LINK TO CANBERRA

ON MONDAY, 20 JULY 2020, AT 1.58 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia
HER HONOUR: This is an ex parte application for leave to issue or file a writ of summons. On 9 March 2020, Bell J directed that, pursuant to r 6.07.2 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), the writ of summons was not to be issued or filed without the leave of a Justice first had and obtained by the applicant. This is an application for that leave.

For the reasons I now publish the application for leave to issue or file a writ of summons should be refused. I publish those reasons. I direct that the reasons as published be incorporated into the transcript.

In matter S48/2020 the order of the Court is:

1. The ex parte application for leave to issue or file the writ of summons is refused.

I publish that order.

This is an ex parte application for leave to issue or file a writ of summons. On 9 March 2020, Bell J directed that, pursuant to r 6.07.2 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), the writ of summons was not to be issued or filed without the leave of a Justice first had and obtained by the applicant. This is an application for that leave.

I have read the applicant’s affidavits and all of the material annexed to them, which also effectively includes the applicant’s submissions. The writ of summons lists two defendants: the Prime Minister of Australia and the “Hon Shelley Hancock Minister for New South Wales”. The writ of summons does not disclose an arguable basis for relief, is an abuse of the process of the Court and otherwise does not comply with the requirements of Pt 27 of the High Court Rules. Moreover, the application for leave has its origin in a sequestration order made against the applicant in 2012. The proper course was for the plaintiff to seek to agitate the issues in the Federal Court of Australia^[1]. The plaintiff does not, and cannot, identify any fact or matter that might be said to constitute an exceptional circumstance to warrant this Court considering the application without the plaintiff’s statutory rights of review having been exhausted.

Pursuant to rr 6.07.2 and 13.03.1 of the High Court Rules, I direct that the application for leave to issue or file be determined without an oral hearing. The ex parte application for leave to issue or file the writ of summons is refused.

AT 1.59 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED

---

^[1] See generally Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union v Director of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate [2016] HCA 41; (2016) 91 ALJR 1 at 8 [22]; [2016] HCA 41; 338 ALR 360 at 367; Dimitrov v Supreme Court of Victoria [2017] HCA 51; (2017) 263 CLR 130 at 138-139 [19]; Bechara v Bates [2018] HCATrans 164. See also Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 24(1)(d).