Agapis v A Deputy District Registrar of the Federal Court of Australia at Perth & Anor

This matter came before the High Court of Australia concerning an application by Mr R. Agapis for an order to show cause. Mr Agapis sought to challenge a decision by a Deputy Registrar of the Federal Court of Australia at Perth, who had refused him leave to appeal a decision made by Justice Gilmour on 26 September 2014. The second defendant, the Plumbers Licensing Board of Western Australia, was represented by counsel.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether Mr Agapis had complied with the procedural requirements mandated by the Federal Court of Australia Act for individuals subject to a vexatious proceedings order. Specifically, the Court was required to determine if Mr Agapis had followed the prescribed form and filed an affidavit addressing particular matters as required by sections 37AR(2) and 37AR(3) and (4) of the Act, which govern applications for leave to institute proceedings by persons against whom such an order has been made. A further issue raised was whether there was an arguable right of appeal from Justice Gilmour's decision, notwithstanding the vexatious proceedings order.

The Court noted that Mr Agapis had not complied with the procedural requirements of the Federal Court of Australia Act for seeking leave to institute proceedings after a vexatious proceedings order had been made against him. The Act provides a specific mechanism for such applications, requiring a prescribed form and an affidavit addressing particular matters, neither of which Mr Agapis had filed. While Mr Agapis sought to explain his non-compliance by reference to limited resources and perceived obstruction by a Deputy Registrar, the Court indicated it could not deal with these substantive complaints, as its powers were limited to the application before it and its merits. The Court also considered the argument that an appeal against the vexatious proceedings order itself might not require leave under the specific provisions, but noted a Full Court decision of the Federal Court had concluded otherwise.