Towle v Registrar Hird [2023] FCA 958

Federal Court of Australia

File number(s):	SAD 79 of 2023

Judgment of:	O'SULLIVAN J

Date of judgment:	1 August 2023

Date of publication of reasons:	14 August 2023

Catchwords:	*ADMINISTRATIVE* *LAW* – application for judicial review of a Registrar’s decision under r 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) to reject documents for filing – whether the original application and accompanying documents are an abuse of process, frivolous or vexatious – application dismissed

Legislation:	Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)

Cases cited:	Ferdinands v Registrar Cridland [2021] FCA 592 Nyoni v Murphy [2018] FCAFC 75; (2018) 261 FCR 164

Division:	General Division

Registry:	South Australia

National Practice Area:	Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights

Number of paragraphs:	8

Date of hearing:	1 August 2023

Counsel for the Applicants:	The applicants appeared in person

Counsel for the Respondent:	The respondent filed a submitting notice

ORDERS

		SAD 79 of 2023

BETWEEN:	THOMAS WILLIAM RAYMOND TOWLE First Applicant YA-FEN CHANG Second Applicant
AND:	ALISON HIRD, NATIONAL REGISTRAR Respondent

order made by:	O'SULLIVAN J
DATE OF ORDER:	1 AUGUST 2023

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application is dismissed.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

O’SULLIVAN J:

1 This is an application by the applicants, Thomas William Raymond Towle and Ya-Fen Chang, to review the decision of a Registrar of the Court made 5 June 2023 not to accept documents for filing (decision) on the grounds that the documents were an abuse of process of the Court, in the sense that the documents do not disclose a cause of action properly stated nor are there any prospects of success on those documents.

2 In the decision, the Registrar noted the originating application (Form 66) runs to 23 pages in length and is accompanied by 36 separate PDF documents. The Registrar also noted the documents are voluminous and consist merely of submissions and a series of assertions with the result that the documents do not set out with any clarity the basis of the application nor the relief sought.

3 The Registrar also determined the documents are frivolous or vexatious as explained by White J in Ferdinands v Registrar Cridland [2021] FCA 592 at [27] to [30] and would, if accepted for filing, constitute an abuse of process.

4 The documents appear to raise a grievance with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal but it is not clear.

5 When refusing to accept documents for filing, the Registrar is fulfilling an administrative function which is susceptible to review by this Court: Nyoni v Murphy [2018] FCAFC 75; (2018) 261 FCR 164. Having considered the documents and heard from Mr Towle today, who also made submissions on behalf of Ms Chang, the Registrar was correct to reject the documents as an abuse of process and/or frivolous or vexatious.

6 Quite apart from that, there is a further issue concerning the time within which any application in this Court to review the Tribunal’s decision should have been filed. That is not at all clear and the whole process seems to go back to 2015.

7 It may be there is a legitimate complaint on the part of Mr Towle and Ms Chang but I am quite unable to determine what it is for the reasons explained by the Registrar. It may also be that if Mr Towle and Ms Chang obtain legal advice, they will be able to file a further application once they have received that advice. At the moment, however, I am unable to determine what the cause of action or the relief sought actually is.

8 It is for these reasons that the application to review the decision not to accept the documents for filing is dismissed.

I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice O'Sullivan.

Associate:

Dated: 14 August 2023

Top