Federal Court of Australia
Ferdinands v Allaway, National Duty Registrar (No 1) [2022] FCA 1599
ORDERS
Applicant | ||
AND: | PHILLIP ALLAWAY NATIONAL DUTY REGISTRAR Respondent | |
DATE OF ORDER: |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The applicant’s amended interlocutory application filed on 1 November 2022 is dismissed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
O’SULLIVAN J:
1 This is an amended interlocutory application by the applicant, Mr Ferdinands, filed 1 November 2022. Four matters are raised by Mr Ferdinands this morning. I will deal with the fourth matter, which involves his referral of questions to the Full Court, at the end of these ex tempore reasons, but the interlocutory application, broadly speaking, seeks three categories of order.
2 Mr Ferdinands has today made comprehensive oral submissions to the Court, for which I am grateful.
3 As to the first category of order, by orders 1 to 3, Mr Ferdinands seeks orders that he be able to file documents which were forwarded to the Court on 22 September 2022, 24 October 2022 and 31 October 2022, in these proceedings.
4 Mr Ferdinands has already filed comprehensive written submissions in relation to the issue in these proceedings, which is an application for review of the decision of Registrar Allaway to refuse the filing of documents, which the Registrar considered were frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process. The decision is still reserved. I am not prepared to grant leave to file the further documents referred to in orders 1 to 3 of the amended interlocutory application, and I decline to do so.
5 The second category is in order 4 of the amended interlocutory application. It seeks leave to file and serve subpoenas on non-parties, which Mr Ferdinands submits are relevant to the question the Court has to decide on the review of Registrar Allaway’s decision.
6 The subpoenas are directed to the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police; the Director of Military Prosecutions; the Minister for Defence; the Commissioner of Australian Human Rights Commission the Commissioner of Australian Information Commission; and the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth. The subpoenas are for both the giving of evidence and the production of documents. In my view, having considered the content of the subpoenas, and indeed, the proposed addressees for the subpoenas, the subpoenas are not relevant to a review of the Registrar’s decision to refuse the filing of documents, and I decline to grant leave to file and serve the subpoenas.
7 The balance of the amended interlocutory application are at proposed orders 5 through to 25. I have considered those orders carefully, and I have taken into account Mr Ferdinands’ comprehensive submissions. The orders Mr Ferdinands seeks are either not within power and/or are not relevant in the circumstances of the matter, and/or in the exercise of my discretion, comprise orders or declarations I am not prepared to make. I decline to make those orders.
8 The fourth matter, to which I alluded to earlier, was a request by Mr Ferdinands that I refer 18 questions of law to the Full Court.
9 I have considered each of those questions. None of them relate to the matter to which I am currently considering, which is a review of Registrar Allaway’s decision. On that basis, I decline to refer the questions of law to the Full Court.
I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice O'Sullivan. |
