FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Druett v Segal [2011] FCA 1191
Counsel for the First Respondent: | The First Respondent submitted |
Counsel for the Second Respondent: | The Second Respondent submitted save as to costs |
Counsel for the Third Respondent: | The Third Respondent did not appear |
Counsel for the Fourth Respondent: | The Fourth Respondent did not appear |
Solicitor for the Fifth Respondent: | Mr O Jones of Clayton Utz |
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA | |
DATE OF ORDER: | |
WHERE MADE: |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application be dismissed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY | |
GENERAL DIVISION | NSD 1635 of 2011 |
BETWEEN: | GARRY KEITH DRUETT Applicant |
AND: | REGISTRAR SEGAL, DEPUTY DISTRICT REGISTRAR, FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA First Respondent ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL Second Respondent THE COMMONWEALTH BANK GROUPS Third Respondent THE NEW HOME GROUPS Fourth Respondent MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP Fifth Respondent |
JUDGE: | ROBERTSON J |
DATE: | 18 OCTOBER 2011 |
PLACE: | SYDNEY |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 This is an application purportedly under s 35A(5) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) to review the “exercise of power” by a Deputy District Registrar (“Registrar”), that exercise of power being the decision of the Registrar on 12 September 2011 under rule 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. The Registrar refused to accept certain documents for filing. The first document was a notice of appeal from a tribunal dated 9 September 2011. The second document was the decision and reasons for decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of 25 August 2011. The third document was an application for reduction of payment of court fees.
2 The Registrar refused to accept the documents because the first document did not articulate a question of law in relation to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision and on that basis the notice of appeal could not possibly succeed. Therefore the first document was an abuse of process of the court and frivolous and vexatious. The Registrar said that the other two documents were only ancillary to the first document.
3 Rule 2.26 provides that a Registrar may refuse to accept a document if the Registrar is satisfied that the document is an abuse of the process of the court or is frivolous or vexatious either on the face of the document or by reference to any other documents already filed. By rule 2.27 a document will not be accepted for filing if amongst other things a Registrar has refused to accept the document.
4 I have read and considered the purported notice of appeal from a tribunal dated 9 September 2011, that is, the first document the subject of the Registrar’s refusal. It identifies a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal given on 25 August 2011. The Tribunal decided it had no jurisdiction to review an alleged decision under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).
5 The purported notice of appeal does not identify a question of law. Further, I find it impossible to discern such a question in the document. I have reviewed de novo the Registrar’s decision. I have heard submissions by Mr Druett and Mr Jones who appeared for the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship.
6 I agree with the Registrar’s decision and the orders I make are that the application be dismissed. In the circumstances and despite the submissions by Mr Jones I make no order as to costs.
I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Robertson. |
Associate:
