Justice’s order rules against man seeking writ against UN high commissioner
A single justice of Australia’s High Court dismissed an application brought by an applicant alleging failures to comply with treaty provisions upon finding that the Australian Human Rights Commission Act gave no substantive effect to those treaties as Australian law.
In the matter of an application by Jan Marek Kant for leave to issue or file [2025] HCASJ 40, the applicant’s fourth ex parte application sought leave to issue or file a proposed application for a constitutional or other writ against the following defendants, in connection with:
Specifically, the applicant requested a writ or an injunction requiring the defendant to do everything necessary:
The applicant claimed that he made six attempts to submit an individual communication to specific committees of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). He alleged that the defendant:
The applicant argued that chapter III of the Constitution authorised the High Court to compel the performance of a duty imposed by any treaty to which Australia was a party. The applicant submitted an affidavit in support of his application.
Last 23 September, Steward J ordered the non-issuance and non-filing of the application for a constitutional or other writ against the defendant, without a justice’s leave, under r 6.07.2 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth).
The High Court registry raised the concern that the applicant previously tried to file a related application that pursued nearly identical relief and included substantially similar terms, with leave denied for being manifestly untenable and abusive of process.
The applicant argued that his present application requested a different relief. Specifically, he alleged that the defendant refused or failed to deal with his complaints, rather than delayed dealing with his complaints.
Justice Michelle Gordon of the High Court of Australia denied the applicant’s ex parte application, filed on 1 October 2025, for leave to issue or file an application seeking a constitutional or other writ, on its face and without seeing a need for an oral hearing.
Gordon ruled that the applicant’s application for a constitutional or other writ against the defendant and the supporting affidavit:
Gordon explained that the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) did not give the subject international human rights treaties and declarations any substantive effect as Australian law. Gordon added that the Privacy Act did not govern the defendant or the OHCHR.
