IN THE MATTER OF RE RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT 1971 (WA); EX PARTE HUGGINS [2024] WASC 301 (22 August 2024)

1. The Defendant owed a Duty of Care to the Plaintiff and all other citizens of the State of Western Australia to provide a Justice System where the citizens;
   • Are to be treated fairly, justly and equally without bias.
   • Are not to be denied of their 'Rights to Natural Justice'.
   • Are not to be denied 'Due Process'.
   • Would not be denied high quality justice;

- If they were not significantly wealthy.

- If they were a Self-representative person.

- If they were a legally ignorant person.

1. The Judiciary in the Defendant's Department of Justice has failed to;

a) Abide by the 'Rule of Law', as required under the Australian Constitution.
>
> b) Abide by the laws of Western Australia.
>
> c) Abide by their individual Judicial Oaths,
>
> d) Abide by the Court's Duties to a self-representative, being; 'The court is required to ensure that the rights of an unrepresented litigant have not been "obfuscated" by his or her own advocacy:' (Ref: Neil v Nott [1994] HCA 23).

2. The Judiciary in the Defendant's Department of Justice did;

a) Repeatedly act in a belligerent and intimidating manner towards the Plaintiff.
>
> b) Knowingly and intentionally act with extreme bias against the Plaintiff.
>
> c) Breach the Plaintiff's rights to Fair, Equal and Impartial Justice, owed to him under the Laws of West Australia, the Australian Constitution and Case Law.
>
> d) Breach the Plaintiff's rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

1. With respect, I have sought to approach Mr Huggins' application in the way that Vaughan J (as he then was) stated in Re Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA); ex parte Gates [2018] WASC 213 [3]:

[The applicant] is a self-represented litigant with no legal training. Accordingly, it is necessary to approach the proposed writ with some flexibility to assess whether it discloses a viable cause of action which, with appropriate amendment, could be put into proper form. Care must also be taken to ensure that [the applicant's] rights are not obfuscated by [their] own advocacy. (citations omitted)

1. Further, Vaughan J stated:
   1. The requirement for leave of a master or judge to file or issue a writ which appears to a registrar to be an abuse of process or a frivolous or vexatious proceeding reinforces the inherent power of the court to protect itself from unwarranted wastage of time and resources and to avoid the loss caused to those who have to face actions which lack any substance.
   2. Order 67 r 5(1) does not state the criteria that is to be applied in determining whether to grant or refuse leave to file or issue a proposed writ. However, it is accepted that a judge or master should refuse leave to file or issue only if satisfied that the writ would be an abuse of process or a frivolous or vexatious proceeding. Moreover, the caution attendant upon the exercise of the power of summary dismissal elsewhere in the Rules of the Supreme Court applies with no less force in the context of O 67 r 5.
   3. Accordingly, the question for determination is whether [the applicant's] proposed writ would be an abuse of process or a frivolous or vexatious proceeding.

1. There is considerable overlap between the concepts of 'abuse of process' and whether a proceeding is 'frivolous' or 'vexatious'. The expressions are often used in conjunction or interchangeably.
2. What amounts to an abuse of the court's process is insusceptible of a formulation comprising closed categories. It extends to all categories of case in which the processes and procedures of the court, which exist to administer justice with fairness and impartiality, may be converted into instruments of injustice or unfairness. Abuse of process occurs in any circumstance in which the use of the court's procedures would be unjustifiably oppressive to a party or would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. However, the onus of satisfying the court that there is an abuse of process is a heavy one. The power to dismiss proceedings as an abuse of process should be exercised with caution and only in the most exceptional or extreme case.

1. Proceedings will constitute an abuse of process if they are clearly doomed to fail or are plainly unsustainable.
2. In the context of an application to strike out a claim or pleading the terms 'frivolous' and 'vexatious' have often been used interchangeably. For example, an action is frivolous if it is obviously (or plainly) unsustainable and an abuse of the process of the court. It may for the same reason be categorised as vexatious.
3. An action is frivolous when it is not worthy of serious consideration, is insupportable in law, discloses no cause of action or is groundless. So too a matter that is without substance or is fanciful is frivolous. The term is apt to describe proceedings in which the plaintiff's claim is so obviously untenable that it cannot possibly succeed or in which there is no serious question to be tried. An action is vexatious if it has no reasonable prospects of success. The term has also been said to be apt to describe an action which is a sham and which cannot possibly succeed.

1. A proceeding will also be vexatious if it is productive of serious and unjustified trouble and harassment.

1. The first difficulty with the motion is that the draft writ does not properly name a defendant.
2. Secondly, the draft writ proceeds on a fatal (to the application) misapprehension that the Department is responsible in law for decisions made by judicial officers in this State. So, for example, paragraphs [35], [36] and [39] assert the following:

[35] The Defendant was at all times responsible for the provisions of high‑quality justice for the citizens of Western Australia, which includes the Plaintiff.

[36] It was incumbent upon the Defendant to ensure that high‑quality justice was provided for all the community of Western Australia, including the Plaintiff. Meaning that 'Sole Purpose' of a Justice System, is to do just that: 'TO DO JUSTICE'.

[39] The Defendant was at all times ultimately responsible for the provision of the Justice System in the state of Western Australia, including the District Court of Albany and the Family Court of West Australia.

1. Thirdly, Mr Huggins seeks by the draft writ and statement of claim to collaterally challenge orders made by the Family Court of Western Australia and the District and, or, Magistrates Court of Western Australia sitting at Albany.
2. Such challenges would be both an abuse of this Court's processes and vexatious in the technical sense (as well as in the commonly accepted meaning).
3. These matters were raised with Mr Huggins at the hearing. On 21 August 2024, after the hearing, Mr Huggins sent an email to my Chambers which included the following:

I understand the three points that you made regarding my Statement of Claim against the Department of justice.

However, the problem is that before we get to your three points, there must have been complete Judicial compliance with ;

otherwise the role of the Judiciary to ensure High Quality Justice becomes meaningless and of no value to society.

That is, these two pillars are essential for the provision of High Quality Justice, that is rightly due and owed to all West Australians.

In my case, the abject and total failure of the Judiciary to comply with these two pillars, then renders your three points to be of zero consequence.

In simple terms, "what comes first the chicken or the egg".

In blunt terms without strict judicial compliance to the Rule of Law and to the Judicial Oath, then citizens of Western Australia are denied the provision and protection of High Quality Justice that is owed to them, leading to the eventual breakdown in society as we know it.

Without complete Judicial Compliance to the Rule of Law and to the Judicial Oath, we lose our civilised society and return to the law of the land and overlord ruling by terrorists / dictators.

I employ you for the sake of our society to accept my Writ and statement of claim for filing against the Department of Justice.

1. I have treated the email as a further submission. Having considered all of the matters advanced by Mr Huggins before, at and after, the hearing, the three fundamental problems remain and are not able to be overcome.
2. For each of these reasons Mr Huggins' application cannot succeed and must be dismissed.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.