• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

The immediate procedural background was that, on 20 May 2024, Gordon A-CJ had directed the Registrar under r 6.07.2 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth) to refuse to issue or file the writ unless a Justice first granted leave ([1]). The applicants then relied on affidavits filed on 24 May 2024. The question before Steward J was whether to grant that leave, not whether the applicants’ substantive allegations were made out.

The proposed writ concerned the applicants’ suspensions as registered health practitioners in Victoria. In November 2021, the Medical Board suspended each applicant’s registration under s 156 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law. The stated basis was that the Board reasonably believed each applicant posed a serious risk to persons because of their conduct, and that immediate action was necessary to protect public health and safety ([4]). The judgment records that the suspensions were continuing.

The Board’s allegations included that applicants had issued COVID-19 vaccine exemption certificates to patients said not to meet the criteria, or had promoted claims described as unjustifiable, misleading or non-factual. For the first and second applicants, the Board also alleged non-compliance with public health directives in their medical practices. In relation to the first applicant, the Board alleged participation in publishing or disseminating COVID-19 information contrary to the positions of government and health authorities ([5]). The Board said the conduct reflected disregard for its position and raised concerns about public safety, public confidence, professional standards and the applicants’ conduct within the broader health system ([6]).

The judgment also describes a joint position statement dated 9 March 2021. It encouraged vaccination, addressed practitioners’ qualifications and training, and set expectations about providing accurate information and advice, including through social media and advertising. It also acknowledged conscientious objection and gave guidance about steps for practitioners with such objections ([7]).

The applicants’ writ alleged that the suspension decisions were an improper use of s 156 and amounted to misfeasance in public office “calculated to cause damage”. It also alleged that the suspension power and the position statement interfered with the doctor-patient relationship and constituted civil conscription contrary to s 51(xxiiiA) of the Constitution ([8]). They sought damages and declarations, including declarations concerning the constitutional provision, the National Law and Commonwealth funding of COVID-19 vaccination services ([9]).

Steward J dismissed the application for leave without an oral hearing ([13]). The order did not determine the merits of the suspensions, the alleged misfeasance, or the constitutional questions.

Why the court decided this way

The governing question was the application of r 6.07.3 of the High Court Rules. Steward J stated that leave to issue or file a document will ordinarily be refused where the document appears on its face to be an abuse of process, frivolous or vexatious, or outside the Court’s jurisdiction ([11]). The judgment cites Re Young (2020) for this approach, including the propositions that abuse of process is not confined to closed categories and can include an attempt to invoke the High Court’s jurisdiction on a confused or manifestly untenable basis. It also emphasises that refusal is appropriate “only in the clearest of cases” ([11]).

The Court then applied that standard to the proposed writ and the affidavits. Steward J’s conclusion was that the applicants sought to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction on a “confused or manifestly untenable” basis. The writ and affidavits did not disclose an arguable basis for the relief claimed ([12]). The judgment does not set out a separate, detailed analysis of each individual cause of action or declaration. Its decisive reasoning is the overall assessment that the proposed claims, as put forward in the filing material, would amount to an abuse of process if the writ were filed.

That distinction matters. The Court was not deciding, after evidence and argument on the merits, whether the Board’s suspension decisions were lawful, whether the applicants had committed any of the conduct alleged by the Board, or whether any defendant had committed misfeasance. Nor did it decide the constitutional issue about civil conscription. It decided that this proposed writ should not pass the procedural leave threshold.

The judgment therefore provides a focused application of the High Court’s power to screen documents before issue or filing. The “only in the clearest of cases” qualification is part of the stated standard, but Steward J considered that this case met it because the claims were not merely unpersuasive on a particular point: on the face of the material, they lacked an arguable basis for the relief sought and invoked jurisdiction on a confused or manifestly untenable basis ([11]–[12]).

Before and after state of the law

The judgment does not describe a change in the law before or after this decision. It states the existing procedural principles by reference to r 6.07.3 of the High Court Rules and Re Young. The rule concerns the Court’s ability to refuse leave to issue or file a document when the document appears to fall within the identified categories. The decision uses Re Young as authority for the characterisation of abuse of process and the demanding threshold for refusal ([11]).

The key legal propositions expressed in this judgment are consequently procedural. First, apparent abuse, frivolousness, vexatiousness or lack of jurisdiction may justify refusing leave. Secondly, abuse of process is not limited to fixed categories and can include a confused or manifestly untenable attempt to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction. Thirdly, the discretion should be exercised only in the clearest cases. Finally, the Court applied those propositions to the proposed writ and found that it should not be filed ([11]–[12]).

The judgment does not set out the wider history or interpretation of s 51(xxiiiA), nor does it explain the substantive law of misfeasance in public office. It records the applicants’ constitutional and damages allegations but does not resolve them. It also does not decide the legal effect of s 156 of the National Law beyond describing the suspension power and the applicants’ challenge to its use ([4], [8]).

Accordingly, the “after” position disclosed by this source is narrow: the leave application was dismissed, and this proposed writ was not permitted to issue or be filed. The decision should not be read from this text as a substantive ruling confirming or rejecting the legality of the suspension decisions, the joint position statement, or the applicants’ constitutional arguments.

Key passages with plain-English translation

At [11], Steward J explains that the Court may refuse leave where a document appears “on its face” to be an abuse of process, frivolous or vexatious, or outside the Court’s jurisdiction. In plain English, the Court can examine the proposed document itself and its apparent legal footing before allowing it to be formally issued or filed. The judgment does not say that every weak or unsuccessful claim meets this threshold.

Also at [11], the Court says abuse of process can include “an attempt to invoke the original or appellate jurisdiction of the High Court on a basis that is confused or manifestly untenable”. In plain English, a claim may be abusive where its basis for asking the High Court to exercise jurisdiction is so unclear or untenable that proceeding with it would misuse the Court’s process. The judgment cites Re Young for this proposition.

The qualification at [11] that refusal is appropriate “only in the clearest of cases” signals restraint. In plain English, the leave power is not presented as a routine way to dispose of claims simply because they may be difficult or contested. The Court must consider that the apparent defect is sufficiently clear to justify preventing the document from being filed.

At [12], Steward J says that neither the writ nor the supporting affidavits disclosed “an arguable basis for the relief sought”. This is the key application to the applicants’ materials. The Court’s stated conclusion was that the claims would be an abuse of process if the writ were filed. The judgment does not provide a claim-by-claim explanation, so a more detailed account of which specific legal elements failed would go beyond the reasons given.

Finally, [13] records that the application was dismissed without an oral hearing. In plain English, the Court decided the leave question on the material before it without holding an oral hearing. That procedural outcome should be kept distinct from a trial or final merits decision on the alleged conduct or constitutional issues.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

The decision is relevant where a proposed document is subject to a High Court leave requirement and the issue is whether the document should be allowed to issue or be filed. Its most direct significance is for applications in which the face of the proposed document and supporting material appear to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction on a confused or manifestly untenable basis.

The judgment does not establish that a claim is abusive merely because it concerns controversial public policy, professional discipline, vaccination, or a constitutional provision. The applicants’ subject matter is part of the factual context, but the stated reason for refusing leave was the absence of an arguable basis for the relief and the confused or manifestly untenable basis on which jurisdiction was invoked ([12]). The decision’s procedural principle should therefore not be detached from that assessment.

A practitioner considering the judgment as a procedural precedent would likely distinguish between, on one hand, a proposed filing that facially discloses an arguable legal basis, even if contested, and, on the other, a document the Court regards as clearly abusive or manifestly untenable. The judgment does not define a comprehensive test for every borderline case. It states the applicable threshold and applies it to the material before Steward J.

The decision is also not a ruling that the applicants’ factual allegations were false. It records the Board’s allegations and the applicants’ claims, then decides the filing-permission question. That means this precedent should not be used, on the basis of this judgment alone, as proof of what occurred in the applicants’ professional practice or as a general decision on the merits of emergency suspension powers.

How later courts have treated it

The supplied judgment does not cite any later decisions or describe how subsequent courts have treated this decision. It was delivered on 19 July 2024, and the text supplied here contains no post-judgment history. It would therefore be unsupported to say that later courts have followed, distinguished, applied or questioned it.

The precedent expressly relied on in the judgment is Re Young (2020) 94 ALJR 448 at 451 [10]–[13]; 376 ALR 567 at 570. Steward J cites Re Young for the principles governing refusal of leave, the scope of abuse of process and the “clearest of cases” qualification ([11]). The relationship shown by this judgment is that Steward J applied those principles to the proposed writ.

For later treatment of [2024] HCASJ 30 itself, further case-law sources would be needed. The judgment alone supports describing its reasoning and disposition, but not making claims about its subsequent reception.

Still-open questions

Several matters remain unresolved because the proceeding ended at the filing-permission stage. The judgment does not determine whether the applicants’ suspensions were lawfully imposed under s 156 of the National Law, whether the Board’s factual allegations were established, or whether any defendant committed misfeasance in public office. The applicants’ claims about damage and causation were not tried.

The constitutional contention under s 51(xxiiiA) was also not resolved. The judgment records that the applicants alleged civil conscription through the operation of the National Law and the joint position statement, but Steward J did not analyse the constitutional provision’s meaning or decide whether it applied to the measures in question ([8]–[9], [12]). The same is true of the applicants’ challenge to Commonwealth funding of COVID-19 vaccination services.

The judgment also does not explain, claim by claim, why each requested declaration or damages remedy lacked an arguable basis. It gives an overall conclusion about the writ and supporting affidavits ([12]). Any more granular account of the Court’s reasons would require material beyond this judgment.

Finally, the text does not address whether any alternative proceeding, appeal, or other application existed, nor does it decide the consequences of the continuing suspensions beyond recording that they remained in place ([4]). These are boundaries of the decision, not findings that such matters were or were not available. This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Before acting on or relying on this analysis, have it checked by a qualified Australian lawyer.