Federal Court of Australia
McGinn v Federal Court of Australia (No 2) [2025] FCA 786
File number(s): | NSD 520 of 2025 |
Judgment of: | JACKMAN J |
Date of judgment: | 3 July 2025 |
Catchwords: | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – application for written reasons under s 13(1) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) – where decision rejected application that proceedings NSD1867/2024 be heard by a Full Court under s 20(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – where decision was judicial rather than administrative and therefore s 13 does not apply – application dismissed PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for default judgment and summary judgment on basis of respondent’s submitting notice – application dismissed |
Legislation: | Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) |
Division: | General Division |
Registry: | New South Wales |
National Practice Area: | Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights |
Number of paragraphs: | 11 |
Date of hearing: | 3 July 2025 |
Counsel for the Applicant: | The Applicant was a litigant-in-person |
ORDERS
NSD 520 of 2025 | ||
| ||
BETWEEN: | SOPHIA MCGINN Applicant | |
AND: | FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Respondent | |
order made by: | JACKMAN J |
DATE OF ORDER: | 3 JULY 2025 |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The originating application for judicial review in NSD520/2025 be dismissed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Delivered ex tempore, revised from transcript
JACKMAN J:
1 This is a judgment in matter NSD520/2025. The background to this matter is that in NSD1867/2024, Ms McGinn applies for judicial review under s 5 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (AD(JR) Act) to review a decision of Registrar Birchall of the Federal Court made on 20 December 2024 on grounds of breach of natural justice, improper exercise of the relevant power, no evidence to justify the making of the decision, and that the decision involves an offence and is thus otherwise contrary to law. The orders sought in NSD1867/2024 include a direction by the Chief Justice under section 20(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (FCA Act) that the proceedings be heard by a Full Court, as well as an order setting aside the decision made on 20 December 2024.
2 The direction sought was refused by the Chief Justice on 24 February 2025 on the ground that the matter was not of sufficient importance to justify a direction under s 20(1A). That decision is the subject of NSD520/2025, in which Ms McGinn seeks an order under s 13(4A) of the AD(JR) Act as to whether she is entitled to written reasons for the decision of the Chief Justice. Ms McGinn made a request for reasons by email on 3 March 2025 which was declined by email on 6 March 2025.
3 By interlocutory application dated 14 May 2025 in NSD1867/2024, Ms McGinn also seeks an order staying NSD1867/2024 until NSD520/2025 is determined. I will therefore deal first with NSD 520/2025.
4 In NSD520/2025, Ms McGinn states as the ground for her application that she is entitled to written reasons under s 13(1) of the AD(JR) Act because the Chief Justice’s decision is an administrative decision to which the AD(JR) Act applies.
5 Ms McGinn has also applied for default judgment under r 5.23(2)(c) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (the Rules) on the basis that, while she filed her genuine steps statement under r 8.02, the respondent did not file its genuine steps statement under r 5.03, and therefore did not comply with the Rules within the meaning of r 5.22(a). Note 1 to r 5.23 states that the Court may make any order that the Court considers appropriate in the interests of justice. The mere fact of non-compliance with the Rules is not in itself sufficient to justify an order for default judgment.
6 Ms McGinn also informed me that she filed this morning an application for summary judgment. Although that application has not yet reached me, I will proceed on the basis that it has in fact been filed.
7 The application for default judgment and the application for summary judgment, together with the application for judicial review in NSD520/2025, all depend on whether there is any merit in Ms McGinn’s substantive application for written reasons to be given under s 13 of the AD(JR) Act. In my view, there is no merit in that application.
8 Section 13(1) of the AD(JR) Act provides for reasons for decisions to be obtained where a person makes a “decision to which this section applies”.
9 That expression is defined in s 13(11) as a decision to which the AD(JR) Act applies (being certain decisions of an “administrative character” as defined in s 3(1)), but does not include, relevantly, a decision included in any of the classes set out in Schedule 2 to the Act. One of the classes of decision set out in Schedule 2 is “decisions in connection with the institution or conduct of proceedings in a civil court”: see para (f).
10 The decision of the Chief Justice under s 20(1A) was judicial rather than administrative in character, and was in connection with the conduct of proceedings in a civil court. It was therefore not a decision to which s 13 applies. Further, as the respondent has filed a submitting notice under r 12.01, I do not regard any non-compliance with r 5.03 as being of any significance.
11 For those reasons, NSD520/2025 should be dismissed.
I certify that the preceding eleven (11) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Jackman. |
Associate:
Dated: 11 July 2025
