Edelman J
2.
writ for the disqualification of Yates J without first having properly sought a ruling from his Honour and then brought an appeal from any orders made.[1]
6 It is unnecessary to deal with those issues which were not addressed in the plaintiff's application. It suffices to say that the plaintiff's application discloses no arguable basis for any relief by this Court. The plaintiff's application is an abuse of process in the sense that it is "manifestly untenable"[2]; that is, it is "manifestly hopeless".[3] The application for a constitutional or other writ should be dismissed without being listed for a hearing under r 25.09.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth) on each of the bases that it does not disclose an arguable basis for the relief sought and that it is an abuse of process and orders should be made, and reasons given, in accordance with r 25.09.2 of the High Court Rules.
7 On 8 October 2024, the plaintiff filed a further document, styled as a "consent" but signed only by her. In that "consent" the plaintiff consented to the orders which she sought in her application for a constitutional or other writ. Apparently the plaintiff considered that she could obtain an order from this Court by "consent" if, as plaintiff, she signed the application and added "submitting appearance filed" in place of the signature of the defendant. But an order is not sought by "consent" if the consent is only that of the party seeking the order. In any event, a court issuing a constitutional writ must be satisfied that the writ should issue. The duty of a court remains one of "adequate and careful inquiry".[4] This application is plainly one where the relief sought by the plaintiff should be refused.
8 On 9 October 2024, the plaintiff filed another document, styled as a "reply". The "reply" purported to be replying to the "consent" that the plaintiff had unilaterally sought to give to the orders that she sought. In the "reply" the plaintiff requested an opportunity for further "reply" if the Court should "have reasons to refuse". But, as stated above, the plaintiff's application is hopeless and no further oral or written submissions should be permitted under r 25.09.1 of the High Court Rules.
- ↑ QYFM v Minister for Immigration (2023) 97 ALJR 419 at 442 [94], 453 [152], 460 [193], 477 [283]; 409 ALR 65 at 90, 105, 114, 137.
- ↑ Re Young (2020) 94 ALJR 448 at 451 [13]; 376 ALR 567 at 570.
- ↑ Citta Hobart Pty Ltd v Cawthorn (2022) 276 CLR 216 at 246–247 [73].
- ↑ Federated Engine-Drivers and Firemen's Association of Australasia v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd (1911) 12 CLR 398 at 428.
