Manolakis v Costello

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an application by Mr Anastasios Manolakis for an order of review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) ("ADJR Act"). 2 On or about 11 July 2008, the applicant attempted to institute a proceeding in this Court by filing an application and supporting affidavit. The District Registrar sought a direction from the Acting Chief Justice of the Court as to whether the documents should be accepted for filing. The Acting Chief Justice directed the District Registrar not to accept the documents for filing on the basis that the application was, on its face, frivolous, vexatious and scandalous. The District Registrar refused to accept the documents for filing. 3 Order 46 r 7A provides as follows: 7A Refusal to accept document for filing (1) A Registrar may refuse to accept or issue a document (including any document which is, or if issued will become, an originating document) if the document appears to the Registrar on its face to be an abuse of the process of the Court or to be frivolous or vexatious. (2) A Registrar may seek the direction of a Judge who may direct the Registrar that a document (including any document which is, or if issued will become, an originating document): (a) is to be accepted or issued; or (b) is not to be accepted or issued; or (c) is not to be accepted or issued without the leave of a Judge. 4 The proper procedure to be followed by an aggrieved party seeking to challenge either a District Registrar's decision or a Judge's direction under O 46 r 7A was considered by the Full Court of this Court in Manolakis v District Registrar, South Australia District Registry, Federal Court of Australia [2008] FCAFC 162. The Court decided that: 1. the conduct of the Registrar undertaken in compliance with the Judge's direction under O 46 r 7A is not open to review under s 35A(5) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth); 2. the direction of a Judge under O 46 r 7A is not a judgment from which an appeal may be brought pursuant to s 24(1)(a) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth); 3. it may be that a decision of a Registrar to seek a direction from a Judge under O 46 r 7A(2) is amenable to judicial review either under the ADJR Act, s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) or pursuant to the implied power of the Court to control its own officers; and 4. the better view is probably that the decision of a Judge to issue a direction under O 46 r 7A(2) is amenable to judicial review, including judicial review pursuant to the ADJR Act. 5 In whichever way this application by Mr Manolakis for an order of review is treated, it must fail. 6 The substantive application seeks relief against a number of politicians, judicial officers, other persons holding public office and other persons. The allegations made by Mr Manolakis are very serious, on occasions are very difficult to comprehend and are, for the most part, quite outrageous. The affidavit in support repeats and expands on the allegations, but it does not contain evidence in support of them. I do not propose to summarise the allegations in these reasons. 7 A number of the allegations relate to events surrounding certain criminal charges brought against Mr Manolakis. The charges proceeded in the Magistrates Court of South Australia and later in the District Court of South Australia. Mr Manolakis complains about the fact that he was deprived of his right of election. That basic complaint gives rise to a number of other complaints and the basic complaint and the complaints which follow from it were the thrust of his oral submissions made on 24 October 2008. How this Court has jurisdiction to provide relief in relation to the conduct of criminal proceedings in the state courts was never adequately explained. Complaints other than those relating to the criminal proceedings are made in the substantive application and affidavit but they are difficult to follow and unsupported by any evidence. 8 In my opinion, there can be no doubt the substantive application and affidavit are an abuse of process or frivolous or vexatious. There is no error of law or fact in so concluding. 9 The decision under review (whether it is the conduct of the Registrar or the direction made by the Judge) was correct and the application for an order of review must be dismissed. I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Besanko.