• 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 writ challenged provisions of two Commonwealth statutes: the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (Cth) (the SGA Act) and the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth) (the SIS Act). As summarised by the judge, Mao sought declarations concerning s 19 of the SGA Act and ss 64 and 68B of the SIS Act. The proposed case alleged that requiring specified superannuation guarantee shortfalls or contributions to be calculated as a percentage of salary or wages and remitted to regulated superannuation fund trustees, while restricting employees’ access to the funds, amounted to an acquisition of property without just terms, contrary to s 51(xxxi) of the Constitution. It also sought an order requiring the Commonwealth to establish a superannuation compensation system ([4]).

The procedural background was important. On 11 December 2024, Edelman J directed under r 6.07.2 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth) that the writ could not be issued or filed without a Justice’s leave ([2]). Mao then filed the ex parte application on 12 December 2024, supported by an affidavit affirmed that day. Gordon J read both the affidavit and the proposed writ ([2]).

Mao acknowledged that the Court had expressed concerns about related applications being similar to, related to, or overlapping with the proposed writ, and about those applications being repetitive, manifestly hopeless and vexatious. She said that she had revised the proposed writ to consolidate arguments, avoid duplication, focus on constitutional questions of public importance and comply with the Rules ([3]). Gordon J nevertheless concluded that the application had no prospects of success and refused leave.

Why the court decided this way

The decisive finding was that neither the proposed writ nor the supporting affidavit disclosed a rational legal argument capable of supporting the requested relief ([4]). The judge did not treat the applicant’s stated efforts to revise the pleading as sufficient to overcome that problem. The focus was on the content of the materials actually presented.

The judgment identifies the nature of the proposed claim and remedies, but it does not set out a detailed constitutional analysis of s 51(xxxi). It does not determine, after argument on the merits, whether the relevant superannuation obligations constitute an acquisition of property, whether any acquisition would be on just terms, or whether the challenged provisions are valid. Instead, it concludes that the proposed claim, as expressed in the writ and affidavit, was manifestly hopeless and that filing it would be an abuse of process ([4]).

That distinction matters when reading the result. The order was a refusal of permission to issue or file the writ. It was not an order resolving a fully litigated constitutional challenge. The judgment’s conclusion concerns the proposed proceeding and the leave application before Gordon J. It should not be expanded into a broader holding on every possible constitutional challenge to the SGA Act or SIS Act.

The judge also described the proposed writ as “vexatious on its face” and said it should not be issued or filed ([4]). The reasoning therefore links the absence of a rational legal argument to the procedural conclusion that filing the writ would amount to an abuse of process. The judgment does not provide a separate, extended analysis of the legal elements of vexatiousness; it states the conclusion in the context of this proposed pleading.

The procedural method is addressed briefly at [5]. Gordon J stated that a document subject to an application under r 6.07.3 is considered “on its face”, referring to r 6.07.1. The judge considered it implicit that the application could be determined without an oral hearing. The application was therefore resolved by reference to the written materials identified at [2], rather than by an oral hearing described in the reasons.

Before and after state of the law

This judgment does not purport to change the substantive law governing constitutional acquisitions of property. It does not formulate or apply a detailed test under s 51(xxxi), and it does not decide the validity of the identified provisions of the SGA Act or SIS Act. Its contribution in this matter is procedural: it records the refusal of leave to issue or file a proposed writ that Gordon J considered unsupported by a rational legal argument and manifestly hopeless on its face ([4]).

The relevant procedural setting is the direction under r 6.07.2 requiring leave before the writ could be issued or filed ([2]). The judgment also refers to rr 6.07.1 and 6.07.3 in explaining the on-its-face consideration of the document and the approach to an oral hearing ([4]-[5]). On the terms of these reasons, the court assessed the actual proposed writ and supporting affidavit, not a hypothetical or subsequently revised pleading.

The decision cites Re Young (2020) 94 ALJR 448 at 451 [11]-[12]; 376 ALR 567 at 570 in connection with the proposed writ’s characterisation and the procedural approach ([4]-[5]). It also refers to an earlier application by Mao, In the matter of an application by Youhua Mao for leave to issue or file [2024] HCASJ 31 at [2], in recounting the Court’s previously expressed concerns about related applications ([3]). The present reasons do not reproduce the full reasoning in either cited decision. Accordingly, this judgment alone does not support a comprehensive account of the law before or after those cases.

No later judgments are included in the material provided. It is therefore not possible, on this source alone, to say how later courts have treated [2025] HCASJ 9. Nor does the decision itself discuss subsequent treatment.

Key passages with plain-English translation

At [3], Gordon J records that Mao said she had revised the writ to address earlier concerns, consolidate arguments and focus on constitutional questions. The judge then states that “despite those efforts” the application had no prospects of success. In plain English, the applicant’s stated improvements did not change the judge’s assessment of the actual proposed claim.

At [4], the central finding is that neither the writ nor the affidavit disclosed “any rational legal argument that could support the relief sought”. This means that, in the judge’s assessment, the materials did not coherently explain a legal basis for the declarations and compensation order being requested. The finding is about the documents put forward for leave.

The same paragraph calls the claims “manifestly hopeless” and says filing the writ would be “an abuse of process”. In practical procedural terms, the judge considered the proposed case so deficient that allowing it to be filed would be improper. The paragraph also says the writ was “vexatious on its face”. These are the judge’s characterisations of this proposed writ; the reasons do not set out an independent, general definition of each expression.

At [5], the judge explains that the document is considered “on its face” and that it is implicit the application can be determined without an oral hearing. In plain English, the court looked at what the proposed document and supporting materials said, and treated the procedure as permitting a decision without oral argument.

The order is short and direct: the ex parte application filed on 12 December 2024 for leave to issue or file a writ of summons was refused. It does not make the declarations requested or order a compensation system.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

The reasons concern an application for leave to issue or file a writ after a Justice had directed that leave was required under r 6.07.2 ([2]). The decision is most directly relevant to that procedural setting: a proposed proceeding is presented for screening, and the judge assesses the proposed document and supporting affidavit on their face.

The features the judge expressly relied on were that the proposed pleading and affidavit disclosed no rational legal argument supporting the requested remedies, that the claims were manifestly hopeless, and that filing the writ would be an abuse of process ([4]). The judge also described the writ as vexatious on its face. These features, rather than the subject matter of superannuation alone, explain the refusal.

The decision also arose against a background in which the applicant acknowledged prior concerns about related, overlapping and repetitive applications ([3]). That procedural history is part of the reasons, but the judgment does not say that prior applications alone determined the result. The stated immediate basis was the content of the writ and affidavit and the court’s assessment of the claim they presented.

The judgment should therefore be read narrowly. It does not establish that every claim about superannuation contributions, restrictions on access to fund assets, or s 51(xxxi) must fail. It records a conclusion about this proposed writ, in this application, on the material before Gordon J.

How later courts have treated it

The supplied judgment does not identify any later decisions considering [2025] HCASJ 9. No claim about later approval, application, distinction, reversal or criticism can be grounded in the text provided.

The cases it does cite are earlier authorities, not later treatment of this judgment. Re Young is cited at [4] in connection with the description of the proposed writ and at [5] in connection with considering a document on its face and determining an application without an oral hearing. The 2024 Mao application is mentioned at [3] as the source of concerns about related applications. The reasons do not provide enough detail to describe the full ratio of those cited decisions beyond the propositions for which Gordon J refers to them.

For research purposes, the safe source-based account is therefore limited: [2025] HCASJ 9 cites Re Young and the earlier Mao application, but the material supplied provides no later judicial treatment of the 2025 decision.

Still-open questions

The judgment leaves the substantive constitutional questions undecided. It does not analyse whether the requirements in the identified statutory provisions amount to an acquisition of property for s 51(xxxi) purposes, whether there would be an acquisition by the Commonwealth or another party, or what the effect of the restrictions on access to superannuation funds would be. Those matters appear only as elements of the proposed claim summarised at [4].

The reasons also do not explain in detail why the proposed constitutional argument was irrational or hopeless. They state the conclusion but do not identify each legal or factual defect in the pleading. The source therefore does not support reconstructing a fuller constitutional argument or attributing specific doctrinal objections to Gordon J.

The judgment does not set out the detailed operation of ss 19, 64 or 68B, nor does it assess the proposed compensation order’s legal basis or the identity of any party responsible for compensation. It records the relief sought and the conclusion that the documents did not rationally support it ([4]).

Finally, the reasons do not describe any later proceedings, amendments, appeals or subsequent judicial treatment. Those questions cannot be answered from this judgment alone.

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