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

[2020] HCATrans 25

[2020] HCATrans 025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S316 of 2019

In the matter of -

an application by AKM AZMERUL HAQUE for leave to issue or file

EDELMAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 11 MARCH 2020, AT 9.33 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

HIS HONOUR:   By an application filed on 4 November 2019 the applicant seeks leave to file a writ of summons and a statement of claim seeking various forms of relief against an officer of the Sydney Registry of this Court in the Sydney Registry itself.  For the reasons that I now publish I would dismiss the application.

The order is:

1.        The application for leave to issue or file is dismissed.

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

On 18 October 2019, Bell J directed the Registrar to refuse to issue or file a proposed writ of summons and statement of claim without the leave of a Justice first had and obtained by the applicant.  The applicant now seeks that leave.

The applicant’s proposed writ of summons and statement of claim are annexed to an affidavit filed by the applicant in support of his application for leave.  The proposed defendants are “An Officer of Registry, High Court of Australia Sydney Registry” and “High Court of Australia Sydney Registry”.  The relief sought against those defendants is:  (i) an order setting aside a judgment of Nettle J refusing an earlier application by the applicant for leave to issue or file a constitutional or other writ; (ii) an order for a “New trial”; (iii) a grant of leave to file or serve an application which he describes as dated 12 December 2018; and (iv) costs, including application fees.

This is the fourth application by the applicant concerning his applications for an Employer Nomination (Class EN) visa and, later, a protection visa.  Following a direction by Gageler J on 23 November 2017 to the Registrar, the applicant was required to obtain leave from a single Justice of this Court to issue or file the first application.  The applicant sought leave to file an application for a constitutional or other writ for an order to show cause against the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection.  That application was dismissed by Nettle J on 7 February 2018[1].  Nettle J explained as follows:

[1]In the matter of an application by AKM Azmerul Haque for leave to issue or file [2018] HCATrans 9.

“Quite apart from the extraordinary delay of more than four years since the applicant withdrew the application for an Employer Nomination (Class EN) Subclass 186 visa, there is no obligation on the Minister to consider, still less accede to, an application for [a] visa which has been withdrawn. For that reason, among others, the proposed application for an order to show cause would be bound to fail.”

The applicant then sought an extension of time to seek leave to appeal from Nettle J’s decision.  That application was dismissed by Keane J and me, and leave was refused, on 10 May 2018 as an appeal would have no prospects of success[2].  A third application, again for leave to issue or file an application for a constitutional or other writ against the Minister, following a direction by Bell J to the Registrar on 12 December 2018, was dismissed by me on 26 February 2019 as an abuse of process because it involved an attempt to relitigate a case that had already been disposed of in earlier proceedings in the original jurisdiction of this Court[3].

[2]In the matter of an application by AKM Azmerul Haque for leave to appeal [2018] HCASL 119.

[3]In the matter of an application by AKM Azmerul Haque for leave to issue or file [2019] HCATrans 30.

In the present application the applicant seeks to impugn the manner in which an officer of the Sydney Registry of this Court dealt with his first application for leave to issue or file and his application for special leave to appeal from Nettle J’s decision.  The applicant alleges fraud, saying that the officer deliberately removed exhibits, which included correspondence concerning his visa applications, from the application papers before providing the first application for leave to issue or file to Nettle J.  The applicant also alleges that the same officer denied that the documents were filed in the first application and refused to allow the applicant to file the same materials in his application for special leave to appeal from Nettle J’s decision.

I have read the applicant’s affidavit and all of the material annexed to it, which also effectively includes the applicant’s submissions. None of the material provides any arguable basis for the allegations made or the relief sought by the applicant. Pursuant to r 13.03.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), I direct that the application for leave to issue or file be determined without an oral hearing. The application is dismissed.

Adjourn the Court.

AT 9.34 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED