In the Matter Of An Application By Cindy Taylor for Leave To Issue Or File

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BEECH-JONES J
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY CINDY TAYLOR FOR LEAVE TO ISSUE OR FILE
[2024] HCASJ 28
Date of Judgment: 15 July 2024
M53 of 2024
ORDER
1.The application for leave to issue or file the document entitled "Application for a constitutional or other writ" dated 9 June 2024 is dismissed without an oral hearing.

Representation
The applicant is unrepresented.

BEECH-JONES J. This is an ex parte application for leave to issue or file an application for a constitutional or other writ. For the reasons that follow, leave should be refused.
On or about 9 June 2024, the applicant, Cindy Taylor, sought to file an application for a constitutional or other writ. On 18 June 2024, Steward J directed a Registrar of this Court to refuse to issue or file that document without the leave of a Justice first had and obtained by the party seeking to issue or file it.[1] On 21 June 2024, Ms Taylor sought that leave. She relies on an affidavit that she affirmed on 21 June 2024.
[1]High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), r 6.07.2.
The discretion to refuse leave to issue or file a document will ordinarily be exercised where the document appears "on its face" to be "an abuse of the process of the Court, to be frivolous or vexatious or to fall outside the jurisdiction of the Court".[2] The concept of abuse of process includes "an attempt to invoke the original or appellate jurisdiction of the High Court on a basis that is confused or manifestly untenable".[3] The exercise of the discretion to refuse leave "is appropriate only in the clearest of cases".[4]
[2]High Court Rules (Cth), r 6.07.1.
[3]Re Young (2020) 94 ALJR 448 at 451 [13]; 376 ALR 567 at 570.
[4]Re Young (2020) 94 ALJR 448 at 451 [13]; 376 ALR 567 at 570.
The application filed by Ms Taylor contains numerous prayers for relief, all of which are nonsensical. For example, prayer 2 seeks an order for mandamus directed to the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth requiring, amongst other matters, that he "[i]mmediately instruct the Crown, Parliament and the Governor General that it is essential to: '[d]eclare a National Emergency due to the uncontained emotions of Hue‑Mans', and immediately place the [applicant] in the role of 'The Grand Mother advising on World reformation', and follow Her recommendations to" "[r]estructure society" and "[e]nter into a Treaty with (the Humans of) ALL Countries in the World". Ms Taylor's affidavit is also nonsensical. She refers to various studies she has undertaken that are said to prove, amongst other matters, that "made up characters are a danger to all Family Members".
On its face, Ms Taylor's application is clearly confused and untenable. This is very much an example of the clearest of cases that warrants the refusal of leave to issue or file a document.
The ex parte application for leave to issue or file the document entitled "Application for a constitutional or other writ" dated 9 June 2024 is dismissed without an oral hearing.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cindy Taylor applied to the court for permission to issue or file a document titled "Application for a constitutional or other writ." The application was made without an oral hearing and was dismissed by the court. The applicant sought relief in relation to constitutional matters, however, the court did not find the application to be sufficient in law or in fact to warrant the issuance of a writ.

The court was required to determine whether the application met the necessary legal standards for leave to be granted. This involved assessing the merits of the application, including whether it disclosed a reasonable cause of action and whether it was in the interests of justice to grant the leave. The court considered whether the application demonstrated a sufficient legal basis for the issuance of a writ and whether it was appropriate to proceed with the matter.

In dismissing the application, the court found that the applicant had not demonstrated a reasonable cause of action. The court held that the application did not disclose sufficient legal or factual grounds to warrant the issuance of a writ. The court also determined that it was not in the interests of justice to grant the leave, as the application did not meet the necessary criteria. The court's decision was based on the merits of the application and the legal principles applicable to such applications.

The court dismissed the application for leave to issue or file the writ, with no oral hearing deemed necessary. This decision effectively prevents the applicant from proceeding with the intended legal action.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established