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

This matter concerned an application by Jeremy David Allen King for leave to issue or file an application for a constitutional or other writ in the High Court of Australia. The application was made ex parte, following a direction by Justice Jagot that such leave was required pursuant to rule 6.07.2 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth). The proposed writ sought to challenge a sequestration order made in 2016 and subsequent orders, including a warrant of possession, naming the applicant as "Jerome King" or an alias of that name. The proposed defendants included a Registrar of the Federal Court of Australia and statutory trustees appointed in prior proceedings.

The legal issues before the Court were whether to grant the applicant leave to issue or file the application for a constitutional or other writ. This involved determining if the application disclosed an arguable basis for relief, if it constituted an abuse of process, or if it was vexatious, among other potential non-compliance issues with the High Court Rules. The applicant's stated grounds for seeking relief centred on allegations of perjury by a bankruptcy trustee, the invalidity of the sequestration order due to its initial threshold and the name used, and the court's alleged lack of power to declare an alias name.

The Court refused the ex parte application for leave. Her Honour reasoned that the power to refuse leave to issue a proceeding should only be exercised in a clear case, and that this was such a case. The Court found no justification for invoking its original jurisdiction to challenge orders that were amenable to appeal. Furthermore, the application for a constitutional or other writ was found not to disclose any arguable basis for relief, to be an abuse of the process of the Court, and to be vexatious. The Court also noted non-compliance with the requirements of Part 25 of Chapter 2 of the High Court Rules.