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

[2019] HCATrans 157

[2019] HCATrans 157

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S172 of 2019

In the matter of -

an application by DUNCAN DICKSON for leave to issue or file

EDELMAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 14 AUGUST 2019, AT 9.40 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

HIS HONOUR:   On 5 June 2019, the applicant filed an application for leave to file an application for a constitutional or other writ.  For the reasons that I now publish I would dismiss the application.

The order is:

1.The application is dismissed under r 25.09.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth).

I publish that order.

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

On 26 April 2019, Gageler J directed the Registrar to refuse to issue or file an application by Mr Dickson for a constitutional or other writ, without the prior leave of a Justice of this Court.  Mr Dickson now seeks that leave.

Mr Dickson provided a lengthy chronology of events as part of the background to his application.  The precise relevance of the events set out in the chronology to the relief that he seeks is not entirely clear.  Part of the background to Mr Dickson’s application is a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) on 27 April 2018, two copies of which he annexes to his affidavit in support of his application together with a number of documents obtained through Freedom of Information requests.  In that decision, the Tribunal described how Mr Dickson had lodged a claim with the Department of Human Services (“the Department”) on 21 January 2016 for disability support pension with longstanding injuries to his knees and problems with his hearing.  That claim was rejected by the Department on 15 May 2016 and the rejection was affirmed by an authorised review officer on 8 September 2016 and by the Tribunal at a first review on 25 January 2017.  At a second review by the Tribunal on 27 April 2018, the Tribunal also considered evidence relating to injuries to Mr Dickson’s back and fingers but affirmed the decision that Mr Dickson was not qualified for disability support pension.

Mr Dickson’s application and written submissions also refer to a number of other decisions and actions about which he is aggrieved.  He refers to a conviction for an offence of stopping in a disabled zone and to other motor vehicle offences.  He describes various conduct by council workers, police officers and public servants.  He refers to a “NSW Centrelink fine 06.08.2015” for “leaving work voluntarily” and an “appeal for the fine, then NSW Ombudsman, Commonwealth Ombudsman, A.A.T 1 & A.A.T 2 all deciding not look at the matters involved”.

In Mr Dickson’s application, he seeks the following orders:

“a.An exemption from Centrelink requirement to provide form SU 415 Doctor Certificate, during the High Court application and review.

b.An order for prohibition of actions by Centrelink to stop the applicant’s payments by any means providing security in the cases to be heard.

c.An order against any action increasing time submit forms for Centrelink.

d.An order for prohibition of statutory bodies under Treasury to delay, cause financial increased costs during the matters to be heard.

e.An order for preservation of my hearing loss from phone calls by Government depts. requiring communication by phone, in opposition to workplace health and safety guidelines for “call centers”.

One reason Mr Dickson says that he requires the orders is “to maintain sufficient time to prepare after the application to the High Court, without delays/ interference/ restriction/ increased costs for review of matters concerning past medical/ surgery & compensation in two claims to Workcover”.

Even assuming that this Court has authority to make all of the orders sought, none of the materials filed by Mr Dickson provides any arguable basis for any of the orders sought. Mr Dickson’s application filed on 5 June 2019 was not listed for an oral hearing. The application does not disclose an arguable basis for the relief sought. It should be dismissed without an oral hearing pursuant to r 25.09.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth).

Please adjourn the Court.

AT 9.40 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED