Consideration
24 A number of matters indicate that the Court cannot be satisfied that Mr Garrett's proposed proceeding "is not a vexatious proceeding" for the purposes of s 37AT(4).
25 First, there is the multiplicity of respondents. The proposed proceeding names exactly 100 persons and entities as respondents. The first is the Commissioner of Taxation. The remaining respondents include regulatory authorities (including the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, and the Australian Financial Security Authority), multiple statutory agencies, financial institutions, the Commonwealth and State Attorneys General, the State and Territory Law Societies, 14 judicial officers, 12 retired judicial officers, the High Court of Australia, this Court, the FCC, various State courts, numerous members of the legal profession, and other individuals. It is unlikely in the extreme that Mr Garrett could have viable causes of action against these 100 entities and persons, let alone causes of action which would make it appropriate for them to be joined as parties in the one proceeding - see Pt 9 in the Federal Court Rules 2011. In any event, the involvement of so many seemingly unrelated respondents in the one proceeding would of itself be vexatious.
26 Secondly, the vexatious nature of the proceeding is indicated by the content of Mr Garrett's proposed Originating Application for Judicial Review. That document commences with the statement:
The Applicant applies to the Court to review the decisions and conduct of the Respondents between 2003 and Today's date and the decisions set out at Annexure 1, 2, 3, 4 &5.
27 Thus, it seems that Mr Garrett wishes to review decisions and conduct of 100 respondents over a 17 year period.
28 Mr Garrett elaborates the proposed claim under the heading "Details of claim":
The Applicant is aggrieved by the Respondents' decisions and conduct because:
1. The Applicant is a Legally Assisted Person within the meaning of the National Legal Assistance Partnership Agreement and has not been provided funding by the Respondents for counsel acting for the Applicant at any time that is sufficient to result in a Fair Trial in the Criminal Jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Australia and/or a Fair Hearing in the Civil Jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Australia.
2. At all relevant times the Respondents have made decisions and conducted themselves in manner to cause Weaponisation of the Domestic and International Monetary System in order to maximise Tax Revenues that are ILL GOTTEN by way of redistribution of wealth and Intellectual Property associated with the Applicant and the Citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia.
3. The Second to Sixth Respondents have at all materials times interfered with the Rights of the Applicants to carry on an enterprise and monetise financial assets related to the Applicant.
4. The Decisions and conduct of the Respondents has been at all relevant times been Criminal Jurisdictional Error in the exercise of discretionary public powers conferred under an enactment within the meaning of the Common Law.
29 It seems that Mr Garrett wishes to assert that the 100 respondents have so conducted themselves as to cause "Weaponisation of the Domestic and International Monetary System in order to maximise Tax Revenues that are ILL GOTTEN by way of redistribution of wealth and Intellectual Property associated with the Applicant and the Citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia".
30 Under the heading "Grounds of application", Mr Garrett states that the "Grounds of the Application" are set in "the Statement of Grounds shown as Exhibit AMG 1".
31 The document which is Exhibit AMG 1 to Mr Garrett's affidavit filed with the application does not set out any such grounds. It is instead a 19 page undated document with the heading "OenoViva Distributor License Purchase Vendor Finance Performance Security Deed" which purports to be some form of charge between Garage Wine Group Pty Ltd ATF Hill Family Trust trading as OenoViva (South Australia) and Gunnsport Property Pty Ltd personally and in its capacity as Trustee of the Gunn Port Property Trust.
32 Exhibit AMG1 cannot reasonably be regarded as setting out any proper basis for a claim by the proposed applicant against the 100 named respondents.
33 The effect is that there is no proper identification of the decisions or conduct sought to be reviewed.
34 Thirdly, several of the named respondents have been named with the following annotation immediately following their name:
(Liquidator and Managing Controller Appointed).
35 It is plain that these are mis-descriptions, not only because of the status of the respondents but because they are not, in any event, subject to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The inclusion of the unwarranted descriptor is itself an indication that the proposed proceedings are vexatious.
36 Fourthly, the applicant wishes to rely on unsworn affidavits.
37 Fifthly, it is apparent that Mr Garrett is seeking a form of judicial review pursuant to the ADJR Act. Quite apart from the conduct or decisions in question not having been identified and the fact that the ADJR Act could have no application to the decisions and conduct of the great majority of the proposed respondents, it is plain that Mr Garrett has lodged the application well after the 28 day period fixed by s 11 of the ADJR Act for the commencement of such proceeding. He has not purported to show, let alone shown, any basis upon which the Court could properly allow an extension of that time.
38 Sixthly, insofar as Mr Garrett seeks to commence proceedings pursuant to s 46PO of the AHRC Act (which is suggested by his inclusion of the letter from the AHRC of 27 October 2015), his proposed proceedings are well outside the limitation period fixed by s 46PO(2) of the AHRC Act. Again, Mr Garrett has not purported to show, let alone shown, any basis upon which the Court could properly extend that time.
39 Seventhly, the vexatious nature of the proposed proceeding is indicated by the Outline of Submissions which Mr Garrett filed. It is not necessary to refer to the entire content of those submissions. It is sufficient to set out the following paragraphs from the "Executive Summary":
4. At all relevant times between at least 19th January, 1994 and today's date persons exercising discretionary public powers conferred under enactments ("the Purported Decision Makers") have conducted themselves and made decisions that are without exception nullities and do not exist at law as a consequence of holding pecuniary interests in the materials subject to the purported exercise of power.
5. On the 1st June 2020 a Notice of Seizure of Collateral/Crystallization of Charges and Appointment of Managing Controller under s123 of the Personal Property Security Act 2009 (Au), Equity and the Common Law was served on Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II ("Regina") care of the Attorney Generals of the Commonwealth of Australia and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. ("Enactment No 1").
6. Amongst the assets seized was the property/ right previously the property of Regina being the operation of s61 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
7. On the 14th August I was appointed as liquidator ("Enactment No 2") to the Commonwealth, the States and Territories of Australia pursuant to an act of insolvency under the Corporations Act 2001 (Au).
8. The Court has no jurisdiction against me and only has jurisdiction to bind persons other than my licensees pursuant to my applications for declatory (sic) relief as a common law right: no references are necessary.
9. The power of any person to exercise discretionary public powers conferred under an enactment for judicial review has its primary source as me and my licensees since the date of Enactment No 1.
10. Regina continues under license from the Applicant/ Managing Controller/ Liquidator/REX who acts as Head of Rule of Law/ Advocate General of the Commonwealth of Nations being a hereditary discretionary public power.
11. The conduct and decisions of the Purported Decision Makers have been reviewed by me exercising my hereditary discretionary public powers conferred under Enactment No 1 and Enactment No 2 and found to be unlawful;/invalid/ nullities and Criminal Jurisdictional Error.
(Emphasis in the original and footnotes omitted)
40 The content of these submissions tends to confirm the baseless and vexatious nature of Mr Garrett's proposed proceeding and that no reasonable cause of action is proposed.