• 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 proposed appeal arose from orders made by Collier ACJ in the Federal Court on 3 December 2024. Lal had lodged interlocutory applications on 28 and 29 November. The Federal Court ordered that those applications be held as pending on eLodgment until the first case management hearing, listed for 6 February 2025. It also ordered that Lal could not file further interlocutory applications in that proceeding without leave ([3]). The judgment notes that the material before Steward J did not explain the underlying dispute, the relief sought in the interlocutory applications, or the reasons for the December Orders. It also records no evidence that Lal had requested reasons ([4]).

Lal's proposed special leave application set out five grounds. In broad terms, these alleged denial of procedural fairness, jurisdictional error related to s 75(v) of the Constitution, harmful delay, public interest concerns relating to Mackay Base Hospital, and an imbalance of convenience ([5]). Those were the applicant's proposed contentions, not findings by the High Court.

A procedural step had occurred before the application was considered. On 23 December 2024, Beech-Jones J directed the Registrar to refuse to issue or file the proposed special leave application unless a Justice of the High Court first granted leave under r 6.07.2. Lal then made the present application under r 6.07.3, supported by an affidavit affirmed on 7 January 2025 ([6]-[7]).

The disposition was therefore not a decision of the proposed appeal after a full appeal hearing. It was a preliminary decision about whether the proposed document could be issued or filed. Steward J concluded that the proposed filing would be an abuse of process and refused leave ([13]-[14]).

Why the court decided this way

The Court gave two principal reasons. First, it concluded that the proposed appeal was directed to the wrong court. The December Orders were made by a single Federal Court judge exercising that Court's original jurisdiction. Steward J stated that an appeal from those orders lay to the Full Court of the Federal Court and could only be brought with leave of the Federal Court. The High Court did not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the December Orders ([10]). On that basis, the proposed appeal sought to invoke the High Court's jurisdiction on a confused or manifestly untenable basis.

Second, Steward J considered the substance of the proposed grounds and supporting affidavit. The Court described the proposed appeal as “entirely devoid of merit” on its face ([12]). Its analysis addressed each ground.

The first ground alleged that urgent interlocutory applications had been rejected without reasons. But the December Orders did not dismiss the applications. They held them pending until the first case management hearing. The judgment also observed that the applications' status would necessarily be considered again, or would already have been considered, in the Federal Court ([12(a)]). The record before Steward J did not establish what happened at the February hearing.

The second ground invoked s 75(v) of the Constitution. Steward J stated that the provision concerns the High Court's original jurisdiction in matters in which mandamus, prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth. The judgment considered that provision irrelevant to this leave application and noted that the December Orders did not provide for such a writ ([12(b)]).

The third ground complained of delay until February 2025. Steward J compared the hearing date with the dates the applications were lodged, 28 and 29 November 2024, and concluded that the delay was not substantial, particularly given court closures over the holiday period ([12(c)]).

The fourth ground raised alleged non-engagement by Mackay Base Hospital and public interest concerns. The Court found it unclear how those allegations demonstrated an error in the Federal Court's discretion. It also noted the lack of evidence that the hospital had failed to engage in the proceeding and the absence of an explanation of the asserted public interest concerns beyond references to systemic governance and accountability ([12(d)]).

The fifth ground relied on the balance of convenience and cited Kawasaki Heavy Industries Ltd v Laing O’Rourke Australia Construction Pty Ltd. Steward J said that balance of convenience may be relevant to an appeal from a judgment on an interlocutory application for an interim injunction, but its relevance to these orders was unclear. The December Orders preceded any determination, or even filing, of the interlocutory applications. The applicant had also provided no evidence of the relief sought or material capable of showing that the balance favoured him ([12(e)]).

The Court's reasoning thus combined a jurisdictional barrier with a separate assessment that the proposed grounds did not disclose an arguable basis for appeal. It treated the proposed filing, if permitted, as an abuse of process ([13]).

Before and after state of the law

The judgment applied, rather than announced a broad change to, the rules governing leave to issue or file documents. Steward J stated that the discretion under r 6.07.3 is exercised by reference to the same criteria that inform the Registrar's action under r 6.07.1. Leave will ordinarily be refused where a document appears on its face to be abusive, frivolous or vexatious, or outside the Court's jurisdiction ([8]). The judgment relied on Re Praljak [2025] HCASJ 1 and Re Young (2020) 376 ALR 567 for this approach.

It also restated a functional description of abuse of process, while acknowledging that the concept cannot be confined to closed categories. For present purposes, it included an attempt to invoke the High Court's original or appellate jurisdiction on a confused or manifestly untenable basis ([9]). The decision's contribution is chiefly its application of that screening standard to a proposed appeal that, in the Court's view, could not be heard by the High Court.

On appellate route, the judgment applied ss 24(1)(a), 25(1), 24(1A) and 33(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), as cited in footnotes [5]-[7]. It stated that an appeal from the single judge's orders lay to the Federal Court Full Court, was subject to leave, and was not within the High Court's jurisdiction ([10]). It did not undertake a general review of appellate arrangements beyond that conclusion.

The Court also referred to r 1.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), describing it as a broad discretionary power to make any order considered appropriate in the interests of justice ([11]). It found that the material before it did not indicate error in the exercise of that discretion, whether of the kind recognised in House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 or otherwise. The judgment does not set out the House test in detail.

Accordingly, the “after” position visible from this judgment is a case-specific refusal of leave, not a stated alteration to the governing law. The decision applies the cited procedural principles to the orders and evidence before Steward J. It does not decide the merits of Lal's underlying Federal Court proceeding or determine the interlocutory applications themselves.

Key passages with plain-English translation

At [8], Steward J states that leave is ordinarily refused where a proposed document “appears ‘on its face’ to be an abuse of the process of the Court”, frivolous or vexatious, or outside the Court's jurisdiction. In plain English, the screening question is whether the proposed document itself reveals a serious procedural or jurisdictional problem. The judgment says applications under r 6.07.3 are determined without an oral hearing, citing Re Young.

At [9], the judgment says that abuse of process cannot be contained in closed categories, but includes an attempt to invoke jurisdiction on a “confused or manifestly untenable” basis. The practical point in this decision was that the applicant proposed to seek a High Court appeal from orders which Steward J said were appealable, subject to leave, in the Federal Court system.

At [10], the Court states, “This Court does not have jurisdiction to hear any appeal from the December Orders.” This is the central threshold conclusion. It is distinct from deciding whether the Federal Court's orders were correct on their merits.

At [12(a)], the Court corrects the premise of the proposed first ground: the applications were not dismissed by the December Orders. They were held pending until the case management hearing. The Court therefore considered that the proposed ground did not accurately describe the orders being challenged.

At [12(c)], Steward J says the period between the late-November filing and the February hearing was “not a substantial delay”, particularly in light of holiday court closures. This was an assessment of the dates and context available in the record, not a general rule fixing a permissible waiting period.

At [12(d)] and [12(e)], the judgment focuses on evidential and explanatory gaps. It says that the material did not show the hospital had failed to engage, did not explain the claimed public interest, and did not identify the relief sought in the interlocutory applications. In plain terms, the proposed grounds asserted conclusions without the supporting material needed to show how the December Orders involved error.

Finally, [13]-[14] connect those conclusions to the result: the proposed filing would amount to an abuse of process, and leave was dismissed without an oral hearing.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

The judgment is most directly relevant to applications seeking leave to issue or file a proposed High Court document where the proposed document, on its face, appears to fall outside the Court's jurisdiction or to invoke jurisdiction on a confused or manifestly untenable basis. It also illustrates that an applicant's own description of the challenged decision needs to be checked against the actual order. Here, the proposed ground described the interlocutory applications as rejected, while the orders held them pending ([12(a)]).

The decision is also relevant where proposed grounds depend on factual assertions that are not supported by the material accompanying the leave application. Steward J identified the absence of evidence about the interlocutory applications, their requested relief, the alleged non-engagement by the hospital, and the asserted balance of convenience ([4], [12(d)]-[12(e)]). In this judgment, those gaps prevented the Court from identifying an arguable basis for appeal.

It may also be relevant to proposed grounds relying on a legal provision or principle without showing its connection to the order under challenge. The Court found that the proposed reliance on s 75(v) did not correspond to the December Orders or the matter before it ([12(b)]). It regarded the balance-of-convenience submission as unclear because the Federal Court had not yet determined, or even filed, the interlocutory applications ([12(e)]).

The judgment does not establish that delay, public interest concerns, or balance of convenience can never matter. Its conclusions are confined to the proposed appeal and material before Steward J.

How later courts have treated it

The supplied judgment contains no information about decisions after 17 February 2025, so it cannot establish how later courts have treated In the matter of an application by Rakesh Lal for leave to issue or file. No subsequent application, adoption, distinction or criticism is identified in the source text.

The judgment itself identifies earlier authorities it applied or cited. It relies on Re Praljak [2025] HCASJ 1 and Re Young (2020) 376 ALR 567 for the criteria governing leave and the description of abuse of process ([8]-[9]). It refers to House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 when stating that the material did not reveal an error in the Federal Court's discretionary decision ([11]). Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550 and Kawasaki Heavy Industries Ltd v Laing O’Rourke Australia Construction Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 825 appear in the applicant's proposed grounds, rather than as authorities adopted by Steward J ([5], [12]). The judgment does not analyse their wider significance.

Still-open questions

The judgment leaves the underlying factual dispute largely undescribed. Steward J expressly noted that the context of the Federal Court proceeding, the content of the interlocutory applications, and the relief sought were not clear from the material ([4]). The source also contains no evidence of what occurred at the first case management hearing on 6 February 2025, and the judgment says it had no evidence of orders made at that hearing ([12(a)]).

The decision does not determine whether the interlocutory applications had merit, whether any later Federal Court decision was appealable, or whether any later appeal would satisfy the applicable requirements. It determines only that the proposed High Court special leave application could not proceed as presented and that leave to file it should be refused ([10]-[14]).

Nor does the judgment decide the substance of the applicant's allegations concerning Mackay Base Hospital or any asserted public interest in its conduct. The point made was that the allegations, as presented, were unsupported or insufficiently explained as grounds for finding error in the Federal Court's exercise of discretion ([12(d)]). Likewise, it does not lay down a general threshold for when a delay in considering interlocutory applications is substantial. It assessed the particular dates and the court closure period before it ([12(c)]).

This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Before acting on or relying on it, have a qualified Australian lawyer check it.