Re Mortimer: referral under r 6142

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Re Mortimer: referral under r 6142

Citation: 

[2025] ACTSC 158

Hearing Date: 

On the papers

Decision Date: 

17 April 2025

Before:

Mossop J

Decision: 

(1) Pursuant to r 6142(3)(b) the Registrar is directed to reject the document.

Catchwords: 

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – ABUSE OF PROCESS – Referral of document for directions pursuant to Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), r 6142 – document filed by non-party without application for joinder, sought final relief via application in proceeding and sought relief that the court had no power to make – direction made to reject document

Legislation Cited: 

Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), r 6142

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT)

Cases Cited: 

House v ACT [2025] ACTSC 122

Parties: 

Shane John Mortimer ( Applicant)

Paul Girrawah House ( First Plaintiff)

Leah Matilda House (Second Plaintiff)

Australian Capital Territory (First Defendant)

ACT Minister for Heritage (Second Defendant)

File Number:

SC 381 of 2024

MOSSOP J:  

1․The Registrar has referred a document to me under r 6142 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT). That rule applies if a document filed in court appears to the Registrar on its face to be an abuse of the Supreme Court’s process or to be frivolous or vexatious. The Registrar may reject the document or refer the document to a judicial officer for directions about how to deal with it. Where the Registrar refers the document to a judicial officer, the judicial officer may direct the Registrar to accept the document, reject the document, or reject the document unless the Supreme Court gives leave to accept the document.

2․The document which the Registrar has referred to me (the document) is a document which, on its face, is intended to be filed in proceedings SC 381 of 2024. Those are proceedings in which Paul and Leah House are the plaintiffs and the Australian Capital Territory and ACT Minister for Heritage are defendants. The proceedings have been the subject of an earlier decision of mine: House v ACT [2025] ACTSC 122.

3․The document is an application in those proceedings. The applicant and the person who sought to file the document is Shane John Mortimer. The document includes as part of the application an affidavit of Mr Mortimer.

4․The orders sought in the application are set out in full in an appendix to these reasons. They may be summarised as principally involving a series of orders directed to challenging whether or not the plaintiffs have a “bloodline connection” to the “Ngambri People”, the Aboriginal group identified in the underlying proceedings as the group of which the plaintiffs are a part. The nature of the orders sought varies. Some would be characterised as generally in the form of prohibitory or mandatory injunctions, some could be characterised as declaratory in nature. However, there are also claims to damages, an order seeking a “forensic audit” of the plaintiffs’ accounts, and orders that the plaintiffs “are to be charged as they are in breach of” certain…