Agapis, In the matter of an application for leave to issue or file

[2022] HCATrans 2

[2022] HCATrans 002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S191 of 2021

In the matter of -

an application by RAOUL AGAPIS for leave to issue or file

EDELMAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA BY VIDEO CONNECTION TO BRISBANE

ON WEDNESDAY, 9 FEBRUARY 2022, AT 9.28 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

HIS HONOUR:   By application filed on 29 November 2021 the plaintiff seeks leave to issue or file an application for constitutional or other writs.  For reasons that I now publish I would dismiss the application.

The orders are:

1.The plaintiff’s application for leave to issue or file be dismissed.

I publish those orders.  I direct that the reasons as published be incorporated into the transcript.

This is an application by Mr Agapis seeking leave to issue or file an application for constitutional writs and other relief. The relief sought by Mr Agapis is centrally concerned with a decision of Gilmour J in the Federal Court of Australia on 26 September 2014, on the application of the Plumbers Licensing Board in the Federal Court of Australia, that pursuant to s 37AO of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) Mr Agapis be prohibited from instituting proceedings in the Federal Court[1].  Mr Agapis also seeks orders quashing a determination of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal made on 28 March 2013, by which the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed a refusal by the Plumbers Licensing Board of Mr Agapis’ application, under mutual recognition laws, for a Western Australian Contractor Plumbing and Drainage licence[2].

[1]Agapis v Plumbers Licensing Board [No 2] [2014] FCA 1045.

[2]Agapis v Plumbers Licensing Board [2013] AATA 187. An appeal from that decision was dismissed: Agapis v Plumbers Licensing Board [2013] FCA 1221.

Each of the proceedings with which Mr Agapis’ proposed application is concerned was the subject of another application by Mr Agapis in this Court, which was determined by Nettle J on 23 September 2015[3].  Nettle J considered applications by Mr Agapis for (i) an extension of time to seek certiorari to quash the orders made by Gilmour J; and (ii) an extension of time to seek certiorari to quash a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.  Nettle J concluded that the delay in relation to the first proceeding was so great, and the prospects of success in each proceeding were so low, that an extension of time to commence each proceeding should be refused.

[3]Agapis v A Deputy President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal at Perth; Agapis v A Justice of the Federal Court of Australia at Perth [2015] HCATrans246.

The present application by Mr Agapis is for leave to issue and file a further application, dated 20 October 2021 and thus again requiring a large extension of time[4], for constitutional and other relief in relation to the same proceedings, as well as in relation to the decision of Nettle J.  On 22 October 2021, Gageler J directed the Registrar to refuse to issue or file Mr Agapis’ application for a constitutional or other writ without obtaining the leave of a Justice.

[4]High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), r 25.02.

The multiple orders sought by Mr Agapis, supported by his 872‑paragraph affidavit with exhibits, seek to reagitate issues that have been finally determined and are “unjustifiably vexatious and oppressive”[5].  To the extent to which Mr Agapis’ relief seeking “submission of Nettle J’s judgment” seeks constitutional writs of certiorari or mandamus, there is no jurisdiction for this Court to grant such relief in relation to one of its own decisions[6].  The application for which Mr Agapis seeks leave to issue or file is an abuse of process[7].

[5]Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378 at 393.

[6]Re Jarman; Ex parte Cook (1997) 188 CLR 595 at 603‑604, 610, 636.

[7]Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378 at 393.

It is plain from the application and affidavit in support that this application for leave to issue or file could not be further assisted by any oral submissions. The application should be determined on the papers without an oral hearing pursuant to r 13.03.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth). The application is dismissed.

AT 9.29 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED