In the Matter Of An Application By Valerie Peers for Leave To Issue Or File

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BEECH-JONES J
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY VALERIE PEERS FOR LEAVE TO ISSUE OR FILE
[2024] HCASJ 29
Date of Judgment: 16 July 2024
M57 of 2024
ORDER
1.The application for leave to issue or file the document entitled "Application for a constitutional or other writ" dated 26 June 2024 is dismissed without an oral hearing.

Representation
The applicant is unrepresented.

BEECH-JONES J. This is an 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 26 June 2024, the applicant, Valerie Peers, sought to file an application for a constitutional or other writ. On 4 July 2024, Edelman A-CJ 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 the same day, Ms Peers sought leave and filed an affidavit in support of that application.
[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.
Ms Peers' affidavit reveals that she has been charged with an offence under s 116 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law, which has been given force of law in Victoria by s 4 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Victoria) Act 2009 (Vic). Proceedings in respect of that offence are currently before the Magistrates' Court of Victoria. In proceedings M41/2024, Ms Peers applied under s 40 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) for the removal of all or part of the proceedings before the Magistrates' Court to this Court. Her application for removal has not yet been determined.
Rule 26.05.3(a) of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth) provides that any reply concerning an application for removal must not exceed five pages. According to her affidavit, on 13 June 2024 Ms Peers attempted to file her reply in this Court but could not comply with the five‑page limit. Ms Peers states that she requested a Deputy Registrar to exercise a discretion to dispense with compliance with r 26.05.3(a), but the Deputy Registrar rejected the document that was sought to be filed.
Ms Peers now seeks leave to file an application for a constitutional or other writ against the Deputy Registrar. Ms Peers contends that the Deputy Registrar committed a jurisdictional error by failing to consider the exercise of the discretion conferred by r 2.02 of the High Court Rules to dispense with the page limit requirement in r 26.05.3(a).
Rule 2.02 of the High Court Rules provides that "[t]he Court or a Justice may dispense with compliance with any requirements of [the High Court] Rules, either before or after the occasion for compliance arises". A Deputy Registrar has such duties (and powers) in respect of proceedings in this Court as are assigned to them by the High Court Rules, by an order of the Court, or by the Chief Executive and Principal Registrar.[5] The High Court Rules do not confer the power referred to in r 2.02 on Deputy Registrars and no order to that effect has been made by the Court (or is purported to have been made by the Chief Executive and Principal Registrar). As the Deputy Registrar is not a Justice and is not otherwise the "Court", it follows that the Deputy Registrar could not exercise the power conferred by r 2.02.
[5]High Court of Australia Act 1979 (Cth), s 26(7).
As the Deputy Registrar could not exercise the power conferred by r 2.02, they did not commit jurisdictional error in failing to consider its exercise. Ms Peers' application is therefore "manifestly untenable".[6]
[6]Re Young (2020) 94 ALJR 448 at 451 [13]; 376 ALR 567 at 570.
The application for leave to issue or file the document entitled "Application for a constitutional or other writ" dated 26 June 2024 is dismissed without an oral hearing.

Valerie Peers applied to the Federal Court for leave to issue or file a document seeking a constitutional or other writ. The application was dismissed without a hearing. The applicant sought leave to file an application for a writ against the Commonwealth of Australia, which she claims would be based on the applicant's right to freedom of political communication, as protected by section 7 of the Constitution. The Federal Court was required to determine whether the application met the criteria for leave to proceed under the Court's inherent jurisdiction. In particular, the court needed to assess whether the application disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

The court found that the application did not disclose a reasonable cause of action. The applicant did not identify any specific laws or actions of the Commonwealth that allegedly infringed her right to freedom of political communication. Furthermore, the court noted that the applicant's claims appeared to be speculative and did not provide sufficient detail to warrant further proceedings. Consequently, the application was dismissed. The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated that the proposed writ application met the threshold for leave to proceed. The court did not require an oral hearing, as the application was clearly without merit based on the information provided. The court's decision was final and there were no further orders.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established