Manolakis v Senior Registrar of the High Court of Australia

• Jurisdiction: Australia Federal only
• Court: Federal Court
• Judgment Date: 16 April 2008
• Neutral Citation: [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...