Background
3 On 26 August 2017, Mr Thomas made a complaint of discrimination to the Australian Human Rights Commission. The subject of the complaint was allegations of racial discrimination while Mr Thomas was pursuing PhD studies at the University of Melbourne. The complaint was made against the University, and staff of the University.
4 Mr Thomas has subsequently commenced four proceedings in this Court.
5 On 15 June 2018, Mr Thomas commenced proceeding VID 738 of 2018 by an originating application titled "Originating Application under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986" naming the University of Melbourne, the Australian Human Rights Commission, and 15 others, as respondents. By the originating application, Mr Thomas sought a range of orders under s 46PP(b) [sic] of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth), including orders that are described as "an interim injunction/injunction on an ex parte basis".
6 On 2 August 2018, Mr Thomas commenced proceeding VID 950 of 2018 by an originating application titled "Originating application under the Fair Work Act 2009 alleging discrimination". By that proceeding Mr Thomas alleged (inter alia) contraventions of the general protections provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 and sought orders in the form of the injunctions sought in proceeding VID 738 of 2018. Currently, only the University is named as respondent to the proceeding. In the originating application, Mr Thomas makes reference to a complaint that he has before the Fair Work Commission in FWC 3036 of 2018.
7 On 6 September 2018, a delegate of the President of the Commission terminated Mr Thomas's complaint under s 46PH(1B)(a) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act on the ground that the complaint was lacking in substance. Subsequently, on 24 September 2018 Mr Thomas commenced proceeding VID 1222 of 2018 by which he sought judicial review of the Commission's termination of his complaint, and a range of orders including that the decision made by the Commission to terminate his complaint be quashed. The respondents to that proceeding are the Commission, and two of its officers. On 1 February 2019, I gave leave to the Attorney-General for the Commonwealth to intervene in that proceeding for the purposes of acting as contradictor, and gave leave to the Commission to file a submitting appearance.
8 On 1 November 2018, Mr Thomas commenced proceeding VID 1407 of 2018. In that proceeding, Mr Thomas alleged that he was subjected to unlawful discrimination by the University of Melbourne, and sought interlocutory and final injunctive relief and other orders, including orders of a mandatory nature. Mr Thomas requires leave to bring that proceeding under s 46PO(3A)(a) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act.
9 In each of the four proceedings, Mr Thomas has filed a number of interlocutory applications which are identified in the schedule to these reasons. Those applications have included an application that I recuse myself, and that the certain lawyers for the respondents be precluded from acting in the proceedings. I heard and determined those applications in December 2018 and dismissed them: Thomas v University of Melbourne [2018] FCA 1978; Thomas v University of Melbourne (No 2) [2018] FCA 2024. The interlocutory applications that Mr Thomas has made also include:
(a) that the proceedings be stayed pending removal of the proceedings to the High Court;
(b) orders that the proceedings be removed to the High Court (cf, Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 40);
(c) that "fraud charges" be heard and determined before any further steps are taken in the proceedings; and
(d) that applications for leave to appeal interlocutory orders that I made at a case management hearing on 30 October 2018 be heard before any other steps are taken in the proceedings.
10 In all, there are more than 70 orders that Mr Thomas has sought in the interlocutory applications that he has filed and which are extant. In addition, Mr Thomas has lodged 32 requests for leave to issue a subpoena, including for leave to issue subpoenas directed at legal practitioners for the parties to require them to give evidence and to produce documents.
11 In the week prior to the hearing, Mr Thomas sought to file five further interlocutory applications which were rejected by the Registrar under r 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) on the grounds that they amounted to an abuse of process. One of the interlocutory applications that Mr Thomas sought to file named 49 respondents, including many who are not parties to any of his proceedings in this Court.
12 The University has filed an application for a stay of proceeding VID 738 of 2018 on the ground that upon the Commission's termination of Mr Thomas's complaint, the Court lacks jurisdiction to make orders under s 46PP of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act. The University has also sought summary judgment in proceeding VID 950 of 2018 on the ground that Mr Thomas was not an employee of the University.