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

[2022] HCATrans 50

[2022] HCATrans 050

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Perth   No P2 of 2022

In the matter of -

an application by LARISSA JANE SIMMONDS for leave to issue or file

EDELMAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA AND BY VIDEO CONNECTION

ON WEDNESDAY, 6 APRIL 2022, AT 9.30 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

HIS HONOUR:   By application filed on 18 January 2022, the plaintiff seeks leave to issue or file an application for constitutional or other writs.  For the reasons that I now publish, I would dismiss the application.  The orders are:

1.The application for leave to issue or file an application for constitutional or other writs filed on 18 January 2022 be dismissed.

I publish those orders.

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

On 18 November 2021, Steward J directed the Registrar of this Court to refuse to issue or file a proposed application for constitutional or other writs presented by the applicant, Ms Simmonds, without leave of a Justice of this Court.  Ms Simmonds brings the present ex parte application, supported by affidavits with exhibits running to hundreds of pages, seeking that leave.

Ms Simmonds seeks leave to issue or file an application for writs of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition against a Justice of the Family Court of Western Australia, a Justice of the Family Court of Australia, Justices of the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia, her former husband, and Legal Aid WA.

Ms Simmonds’ application is in connection with proceedings in the Family Court of Western Australia.  Amongst the voluminous material exhibited to Ms Simmonds’ affidavits is a document that appears to be a copy of the reasons of the Full Court of the Family Court in an appeal in those proceedings[1].  In those reasons, the Full Court explained that Moncrieff J had determined parenting proceedings in a trial between Ms Simmonds and her former husband which took place over 25 days in March, June and July 2013[2].  Ms Simmonds’ application for an extension of time to appeal from that decision was dismissed in July 2014, and an application for special leave to appeal was refused by the High Court in December 2014[3].  The proceedings before Moncrieff J resulted in further orders as to contact between Ms Simmonds and her child and the costs of the proceedings[4].  Those orders were the basis of six appeals by Ms Simmonds, all of which were dismissed by the Full Court of the Family Court[5].  It appears that, in the course of Ms Simmonds’ proceedings, an order was made restraining Ms Simmonds from instituting further parenting proceedings without leave on the basis that her proceedings were vexatious[6].

[1]Affidavit of Larissa Jane Simmonds sworn 13 October 2021, Exhibit 3.

[2]Affidavit of Larissa Jane Simmonds sworn 13 October 2021, Exhibit 3 at 72‑73 [4]‑[8].

[3]Affidavit of Larissa Jane Simmonds sworn 13 October 2021, Exhibit 3 at 74 [10].

[4]See Affidavit of Larissa Jane Simmonds sworn 13 October 2021, Exhibit 73.

[5]Affidavit of Larissa Jane Simmonds sworn 13 October 2021, Exhibit 3 at 74 [12]‑[16].

[6]Affidavit of Larissa Jane Simmonds sworn 13 October 2021, Exhibit 3 at 89 [88].

Ms Simmonds has, at least twice, unsuccessfully sought special leave to appeal to this Court.  She has also previously sought leave to issue or file an application for constitutional writs in this Court[7]. This Court has the power under s 77RN of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), of its own initiative, to make a vexatious proceedings order. The point may already have been reached at which such an order should be considered. But I have not collated the detail of the many applications filed by Ms Simmonds. It is sufficient, at present, and for the purposes of this application, to address its lack of any prospect of success.

[7]See Simmonds, In the matter of an application for leave to issue or file [2020] HCATrans 34.

Some of the events to which Ms Simmonds refers occurred approximately seven years ago.  On any view, a substantial extension of time would be required for the filing of the application for writs of mandamus or certiorari[8].  Although Ms Simmonds refers to health circumstances which have delayed the filing of the application, the application has no prospects of success and no extension of time is warranted.

[8]High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), r 25.02. See Re Commonwealth of Australia; Ex parte Marks (2000) 75 ALJR 470 at 474 [15]‑[16]; 177 ALR 491 at 495‑496.

The extensive material filed by Ms Simmonds in this Court, running to hundreds of pages, makes numerous allegations regarding the Family Court proceedings, including allegations of fraud against a child psychologist involved in the proceedings and of bias due to various persons being members of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.  Some of these matters concern issues raised in the Family Court of Western Australia.  Some concern issues raised previously in this Court.  Putting to one side the obstacles to this application raised by the lack of original jurisdiction of this Court over Ms Simmonds’ former husband or Legal Aid WA, or judges of State courts[9], none of the many issues raised by Ms Simmonds gives rise to any prospect of successfully establishing any basis for the relief that she seeks.  To the extent that any coherence can be made of any of Ms Simmonds’ allegations, including those of fraud, alleged bias and denial of procedural fairness, none of her claims has any prospect of success.

[9]In re Anderson; Ex parte Bateman (1978) 53 ALJR 165; 21 ALR 56. See also R v Murray and Cormie; Ex parte the Commonwealth (1916) 22 CLR 437 at 452, 464, 471. Compare Dimitrov v Supreme Court (Vic) (2017) 263 CLR 130 at 143‑144 [29], 145 [33].

There is no possibility that any oral submissions could provide any prospect of success for this application. I direct that it be determined on the papers without an oral hearing pursuant to r 13.03.01 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth). The application for leave to issue or file is dismissed.

Please adjourn the Court.

AT 9.30 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED