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

[2023] HCATrans 158

[2023] HCATrans 158

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Brisbane  No B56 of 2023

In the matter of -

an application by JEREMY DAVID ALLEN KING for leave to issue or file

GORDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON TUESDAY, 14 NOVEMBER 2023, AT 9.29 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

HER HONOUR: On 17 October 2023, the applicant filed an application for leave to issue or file an application for a constitutional or other writ. On 6 October 2023, Justice Jagot directed that, pursuant to rule 6.07.2 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth) the writ was not to be issued or filed without the leave of a Justice first had and obtained by the applicant.

Pursuant to rule 6.07.2 and 13.03.1 of the Rules, I direct that the ex parte application for leave to issue or file the application for a constitutional or other writ be determined without an oral hearing. The ex parte application for leave to issue or file is refused. I publish those reasons. In matter number B56/2023, the order of the Court is:

The ex parte application for leave to issue or file the application for a constitutional or other writ is refused.

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

This is an ex parte application for leave to issue or file an application for a constitutional or other writ dated 17 October 2023. On 6 October 2023, Jagot J directed that, pursuant to r 6.07.2 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), the writ was not to be issued or filed without the leave of a Justice first had and obtained by the applicant. This ex parte application for leave to issue or file that writ is supported by an affidavit sworn on 18 October 2023, to which is annexed a number of exhibits.

I have read the applicant’s affidavit, which also effectively includes the applicant’s submissions.  The proposed writ lists three defendants:  a Registrar of the Federal Court of Australia, and Gavin Morton and Leon Lee, the statutory trustees appointed pursuant to orders made by Judge Jarrett on 4 February 2021.

The basis upon which the applicant’s proposed constitutional or other writ seeks relief in the original jurisdiction of this Court was stated as follows:

“9.The Sequestration Order, dated 13^th July 2016, was issued under the legislative threshold of $5,000, and the Order in the name of ‘Jerome King’ (not in the name of Jeremy David Allen King, the Plaintiff in the case and a Joint Tenant in the property).

. . .

10a.Assistant Bailiff . . . personally served the Bankruptcy Trustee . . . with my Passport in my name of Jeremy David Allen King, and the Trustee by Affidavit, 10^th September 2019, filed into Court that Jeremy David Allen King was an alias name of ‘Jerome King’, the name on the Sequestration Order.

10b.The Lower Courts acted on this Affidavit by the Trustee, and by Court Order, Judge Vasta declared Jeremy David Allen King was an alias name of ‘Jerome King’.

10c.I believe the Court has no power to change a person’s legal name to that of an alias name.  This change of name was for the Bankruptcy Trustee to be able to seize the subject property from the invalid Sequestration Order in the name of ‘Jerome King’; the present Warrant of Possession ordered by Judge Vasta last Monday, 16^th October 2023.

10d.This has caused Perjury for Entitlement by the Bankruptcy Trustee, the filing of a knowingly incorrect Affidavit into Court with the consequence of the Court Ordered sale of the subject property for Enrichment to the Trustee, appointed by the Statutory Trustees.”  (emphasis added)

It is on this basis that the applicant proposes to seek, among other things, an extension of time in which to seek a writ of certiorari “to annul a Sequestration Order”, a writ of prohibition “to stop the Warrant of Possession” and orders to effect changes to the title particulars of the “subject property”.

The power to refuse leave to issue a proceeding is not to be exercised except in a clear case.[1]  This is such a case.

[1]      See, eg, Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62 at 91.

There is no justification for these proceedings.  It is inappropriate for the original jurisdiction of this Court to be invoked to challenge orders amenable to appeal.[2] In any event, the present application for a constitutional or other writ does not disclose any arguable basis for relief; is an abuse of the process of the Court; is vexatious and otherwise does not comply with the requirements of Pt 25 of Ch 2 of the High Court Rules.

[2]      See, eg, Waters v Federal Court of Australia and the Judges Thereof [2015] HCA Trans 347.

Pursuant to rr 6.07.2 and 13.03.1 of the High Court Rules, I direct that the ex parte application for leave to issue or file the application for a constitutional or other writ be determined without an oral hearing. The ex parte application for leave to issue or file the application for a constitutional or other writ is refused.

The Court will now adjourn until 10.00 am.

AT 9.30 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED