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

The applicant, Ms Janet Varcoe, sought leave from the High Court of Australia to issue or file a writ of summons and statement of claim. Ms Varcoe's proposed claim concerned the validity of certain orders made under the *Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008* (Vic), which she alleged prevented her from attending work due to her unvaccinated status. She sought a declaration that these Victorian orders were inconsistent with the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth) and therefore invalid under section 109 of the Constitution.

The legal issues before the Court were whether to grant Ms Varcoe leave to file her claim, and in doing so, whether the proposed statement of claim sufficiently justified bringing the matter in the High Court's original jurisdiction and whether it was formulated with the necessary clarity and legal precision for such proceedings. Specifically, Ms Varcoe's proposed statement of claim raised questions about whether Crown Resorts Ltd was a trading corporation for the purposes of section 51(xx) of the Constitution, and whether the Victorian Act, in its practical operation, constituted industrial relations law invalidly inconsistent with Commonwealth legislation.

The Court dismissed Ms Varcoe's application for leave. Two independent reasons were provided. Firstly, the proposed statement of claim failed to demonstrate why the matter should be heard in the High Court's original jurisdiction rather than a lower court, such as the Federal Court, which possesses jurisdiction over the grounds Ms Varcoe relied upon. The Court noted that commencing proceedings in its original jurisdiction should be reserved for important and urgent matters requiring its immediate attention, and that bypassing lower courts deprives the High Court of their reasoning. Secondly, the Court found the proposed statement of claim to be fundamentally deficient. Despite Ms Varcoe being an unrepresented litigant, the statement lacked clarity regarding the factual foundations of her constitutional arguments and failed to concisely identify the specific provisions of the Victorian Act alleged to be inconsistent with the *Fair Work Act*. The Court concluded that the application was frivolous and vexatious due to the inappropriate forum and the inadequate presentation of the issues.