Manolakis v Senior Registrar of the High Court of Australia [2008] FCA 506

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Manolakis v Senior Registrar of the High Court of Australia [2008] FCA 506

ANASTASIOS MANOLAKIS v SENIOR REGISTRAR OF THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA & OTHERS

SAD 17 of 2008

MANSFIELD J

16 APRIL 2008

ADELAIDE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY SAD 17 of 2008

BETWEEN: ANASTASIOS MANOLAKIS

Applicant

AND: SENIOR REGISTRAR OF THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA & OTHERS

Respondents

JUDGE: MANSFIELD J

DATE OF ORDER: 16 APRIL 2008

WHERE MADE: ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application be dismissed. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY SAD 17 of 2008

BETWEEN: ANASTASIOS MANOLAKIS

Applicant

AND: SENIOR REGISTRAR OF THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA & OTHERS

Respondents

JUDGE: MANSFIELD J

DATE: 16 APRIL 2008

PLACE: ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This application was instituted on 20 February 2008. It is in essence in the same terms as an application made to the Court on 19 February 2008 which the Registrar, pursuant to the direction of a Judge of the Court, did not accept on the basis that it was scandalous and appeared on its face to be an abuse of the process of the Court: see O 46 r 7A of the Federal Court Rules. As it appeared likely that the applicant would simply persist in re-presenting his proceeding, I directed that it be accepted by the Registry, but that it not be served pending the first directions hearing. 2 On 6 March 2008, at the first directions hearing, I explained to the applicant that the proceedings were incompetent in a number of respects. I pointed out the need for the application to be amended to ensure that it made allegations which attracted the jurisdiction of the Court, and that it was supported by a statement of claim in view of the allegations which were made (see O 4 r 6(1A) of the Rules), and that the statement of claim properly specify the material facts upon which the allegations were made and confine those material facts to those relating to the named respondents. I had earlier, in another matter in which I have also given judgment this morning (Manolakis v Carter [2008] FCA 505) explained at considerable length to the applicant those matters in an endeavour to ensure that he presented to the Court in as competent and comprehensive a way as appropriate, and as he could on the information available to him, his claims in a form which might be sustainable. He acknowledged at the directions hearing on 6 March 2008 that he had earlier received those explanations, and would endeavour to address them by filing an amended application and a statement of claim. 3 He was accordingly given leave to do so. The matter was stood over for further directions to 16 April 2008 to consider what, if any, further directions or orders should be made. The applicant explained on 6 March 2008 that his proceeding in part concerned an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court from a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of South Australia. He presented transcript of the Court of Criminal Appeal hearing (SCCRM-07-157 (four volumes)) and an index to that material (SCCRM-07-0235 (one volume)) which I indicated I would endeavour to peruse to see whether it might enable his complaints to be more focused. He then immediately asked for those documents to be released to him for copying before being returned to the Court. They have not been returned to the Court and I have not therefore perused them. The applicant did not attend the directions hearing on 16 April 2008. 4 The applicant has not filed an amended application, or any statement of claim, or any further affidavits in support of his application. 5 In my view, the application should be dismissed and I so order. I do so because, in my view, the application as expressed has no real prospect of success (s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1975 (Cth)) and O 20 r 1 of the Federal Court Rules, and because the application is not supported by a statement of claim as required by O 4 r 6(1A) of the Rules in light of the allegations, and because even if the affidavit filed by the applicant in support of the application is regarded as a pleading or as being in substitution for a pleading, it does not meet the requirements of O 11 because it contains material which is frivolous and vexatious, because it does not set out material facts upon which the primary claims for relief could possibly be established, and because in significant respects it makes general allegations which at least on the material asserted are not within the jurisdiction of the Court. So extensive are the defects that it is appropriate to refer only briefly to them. 6 There are a number of allegations made of criminal conduct on the part of individuals. There is nothing to found the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain such a complaint, assuming that it is possible for the applicant to assert criminal conduct on the part of any person without himself asserting loss suffered as a result of that criminal conduct. He does not do so. That includes the allegation of fraud committed against the South Australian Health Department. He does not in that respect, or generally in relation to the allegations of criminal conduct, identify the basis, if any, upon which he suffered as a result of that conduct. In any event, the conduct is alleged against a number of persons only a few of whom are named respondents. The other persons are not named respondents. In addition, although there is a general allegation of criminal conduct in a number of respects, it is not particularised or specified by assertions of material facts in any way which is comprehensible and from which any of the named respondents, or indeed to any of the named alleged offenders who are not respondents, could understand what it is alleged that they have engaged in, where and when and in relation to whom. Those allegations, in the circumstances, are scandalous and quite inappropriately made. 7 In relation to the claims against officers of the High Court of Australia, no foundation for this Court to exercise jurisdiction in respect of those persons is identified. The allegation again concerns other named and unnamed respondents, as well as officers of the High Court, for failing somehow to receive and entertain an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court. It appears from material apparently erroneously presented in the other proceedings in which I have today given judgment that an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision or decisions (it is unclear which) of the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of South Australia was, by direction of a Justice of the High Court of Australia, not received pursuant to r 6.07 of the High Court Rules. However, the nature of those applications, any ruling specified by the direction of that Justice, or the details of the application, are not set out. No such decision is reviewable by this Court, and I suspect the officers of the High Court simply gave effect to it. However, the allegations are really too general to know what is really being alleged. 8 In my view, the proceeding is an abuse of process. It is foredoomed to fail and should be dismissed: Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 278. That is particularly so where such serious allegations are made against officers of the Court or other public officials or public officers not supported by particulars or adequate facts from which the allegation is made: Nolan v Administrative Appeals Tribunal (1997) 47 ALD 689. 9 I so order. I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Mansfield.