Vakras v Federal Court of Australia & Ors

The applicant sought orders of mandamus and certiorari from the High Court of Australia to quash decisions of the Federal Circuit Court and the Federal Court. The Federal Circuit Court had summarily dismissed the applicant's claims under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) and associated relief against Robert Raymond Cripps and Redleg Museum Services Pty Ltd, pursuant to s 17A of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth) and the doctrine of *Anshun* estoppel. The Federal Court had subsequently dismissed the applicant's application for leave to appeal from these orders.

The High Court was required to determine whether the applicant had identified an arguable basis to doubt the correctness of the orders made by the Federal Circuit Court and the Federal Court. Specifically, the court considered the applicant's contentions that the Federal Circuit Court judge erred in applying *Anshun* estoppel to claims under the *Australia Human Rights Commission Act 1986* (Cth) and the *Copyright Act 1968* (Cth), and that the judge had improperly applied *Anshun* estoppel to a claim under the Consumer Law without affording the applicant an opportunity to make submissions.

The court reasoned that the applicant had not established an arguable basis to doubt the correctness of the lower courts' decisions. Regarding the claim under the *Australia Human Rights Commission Act*, the court noted that the Federal Circuit Court judge had relied on issue estoppel based on factual findings from prior Supreme Court proceedings, and alternatively, that the claim lacked a reasonable prospect of success. Concerning the *Copyright Act* claim, the court affirmed that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear such claims, and that the Federal Circuit Court judge's finding that the claim lacked an arguable foundation was correct. Finally, with respect to the Consumer Law claim, the court found that even if the applicant had not fully comprehended *Anshun* estoppel initially, he could have amended his Supreme Court proceedings once the alleged misleading and deceptive conduct became apparent, and therefore, the application was dismissed.