Agapis v Plumbers Licensing Board

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 I made orders in this matter on 1 April 2014, at which time I delivered ex tempore reasons. These are those reasons, edited, but not so as to alter their substance. 2 There are two matters before the Court this morning. The Court is sitting in its appellate jurisdiction in relation to an appeal lodged by the present applicant, Mr Raoul Agapis. Mr Agapis has appealed from a judgment given on 18 November 2013: Agapis v Plumbers Licensing Board [2013] FCA 1221. The appeal is listed to be heard in May this year. Mr Agapis has filed an interlocutory application dated 27 February 2014 to stay the appeal proceedings as well as to obtain orders that the appeal be the subject of mediation. 3 The application is supported by two affidavits by Mr Agapis, the first sworn on 27 February 2014 and the second on 28 March 2014. The second of these contains the most recent report by Dr Jonathan Phillips, the consultant psychiatrist who has been treating Mr Agapis. He reviewed Mr Agapis in Sydney on 25 March 2014 and in his report of that date, obviously intended to be received by this Court, Dr Phillips identifies that Mr Agapis suffers from certain disorders. It is unnecessary to describe these presently. 4 Relevantly, Dr Phillips has opined that Mr Agapis is not in a position where he can continue aspects of his litigation in a safe and considered manner and that Mr Agapis currently lacks the skills and ability to perform at a reasonable level in the appeal case. Dr Phillips has suggested that any further legal matters be delayed for three months to allow Mr Agapis time to overcome his current disorder. He noted, in closing, that ordinarily Mr Agapis would return to his care in Sydney, but it may be that alternative arrangements have to be made for Mr Agapis to seek treatment in Western Australia. 5 It is convenient now to turn to the second matter - an interlocutory application filed by the respondent - before I make any orders in Mr Agapis' application, because the two are interrelated. The respondent, the Government of Western Australia Plumbers Licensing Board, by interlocutory application dated 11 March 2014 seeks, pursuant to s 37AO(1)(a) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), a finding that the applicant, Mr Agapis, is a person who has frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings in Australian courts together with consequential orders. 6 Plainly, that application will require to be the subject of directions prior to hearing. However, as a consequence, at least, of it bringing this application, the respondent does not oppose the application by Mr Agapis that the appeal listed for 22 May 2014 be vacated and adjourned to a date to be fixed. I would, as I indicated orally before to Mr Agapis, have acceded to his application in any event, but, as it transpires, the respondent does not oppose the making of the stay order which Mr Agapis seeks. It will be convenient, I think, to hear the respondent's application, which I have described, and upon its determination to then perhaps consider what, if anything, is required to be ordered by way of directions in relation to the current appeal proceedings. 7 Accordingly, dealing first with the interlocutory application of the applicant, I will make an order that: 1. the appeal listed for 22 May 2014 be vacated; and 2. that the appeal be re-listed for directions, if necessary, on a date after the determination of the respondent's interlocutory application dated 11 March 2014. 8 I am not prepared to make an order for mediation in the appeal proceedings at this stage. This too should abide consideration until after the determination of the respondent's interlocutory application. 9 In relation to the respondent's interlocutory application, I will make orders 2 and 3 in the respondent's minute of proposed orders. They will become orders 1 and 2, and order 3 will be that the interlocutory application be listed for a hearing for half a day, commencing at 9.30 am on Thursday 31 July 2014.