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

This matter came before the High Court of Australia on an application by Jerrod James Conomy for leave to issue or file a document. Mr Conomy appeared in person. The application for leave was necessitated by a prior order of the Court that the Registrar refuse Mr Conomy the ability to file documents without first obtaining the leave of a Justice. This order was made following a series of applications by Mr Conomy that, in substance, sought to re-establish an application for special leave to appeal that had previously been refused by Justice Gordon on the grounds of insufficient prospects of success.

The legal issues before the Court concerned whether Mr Conomy's proposed filing constituted an abuse of process, and the proper interpretation and application of the High Court Rules, particularly concerning the filing of documents by unrepresented applicants and the concept of "reinstatement" of abandoned applications. Mr Conomy argued that his written case and draft notice of appeal had not been determined on their merits, and that the Court had incorrectly focused on the application for special leave itself, rather than the documents prescribed by rule 41.10 for the determination of such applications. He further contended that the use of the term "reinstatement" in his applications was a consequence of instructions from the Registrar regarding abandoned applications, and should not be interpreted as a separate request for redetermination of a finally decided matter.

The Court noted that the hearing was solely to allow Mr Conomy to make oral submissions in support of his application for leave to file a document. Mr Conomy presented arguments regarding the interpretation of Justice Gordon's reasons, the relevance of the application for special leave versus the written case under rule 41.10, and the procedural consequences of an application being rendered abandoned by the rules. He asserted that his applications were not for redetermination of previously decided matters, but rather for the filing of documents that had not yet been considered, or for proposed amendments to existing applications. He also questioned the jurisdiction under which the Court had made its previous orders. The Court indicated it would decide the matter on the basis of the written submissions and any oral additions made by Mr Conomy.