Justice deems proposed application manifestly untenable on its face
A single justice of the High Court of Australia has denied a leave application and decided that the applicant improperly constituted a proposed application upon finding that it could not grant the requested relief, directed to nonexistent persons.
In the matter of an application by Groom for leave to issue or file, [2025] HCASJ 19, on 27 June 2025, the applicant filed an ex parte application seeking leave to issue or file a document under r 6.07.3 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth).
On 27 June 2025 and 4 July 2025, the applicant provided two sworn affidavits to support the application.
The document was an application seeking a constitutional or other writ directed to the “Chief Registrar of the High Court of Australia.” Specifically, the applicant wanted a writ of mandamus for a High Court justice to consider a written request for judicial direction dated 16 May 2025.
The request for judicial direction concerned a planned application assailing the validity of a domestic violence order issued by the Magistrates Court of South Australia.
The applicant wanted the justice to decide whether the applicant could apply for a declaration or constitutional relief at this stage without a named respondent, or whether the court could otherwise direct how the applicant could lawfully and fairly proceed, given the unique obstruction in this matter.
A single justice of the High Court of Australia refused the 27 June 2025 application for leave to issue or file the proposed application for a 27 May 2025 constitutional or other writ, without listing the application for an oral hearing.
The justice considered the proposed application manifestly untenable on its face because it failed to raise an arguable basis for the requested writ of mandamus, directed to any person, or any other ancillary relief.
The justice concluded that the applicant failed to engage the court’s jurisdiction. The justice held that it could not grant the relief sought in the proposed application.
The justice said the applicant improperly constituted the proposed application because the “Chief Registrar of the High Court of Australia” was nonexistent. The justice added that the applicant wanted a writ of mandamus directed to “the Registrar” of the High Court, who also did not exist.
