Federal Court of Australia

McGinn v Federal Court of Australia (No 2) [2025] FCA 791

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The originating application 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    In matter NSD536/2025, this is an application for judicial review pursuant to s 5 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (AD(JR) Act) and s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) (Judiciary Act) in relation to a decision by Registrar Parkyn dated 1 April 2025 to refuse to accept documents for filing pursuant to r 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).

2    Rule 2.26 provides that a Registrar may refuse to accept a document (including a document that would, if accepted, become an originating application) if the Registrar is satisfied that the document is an abuse of the process of the Court or is frivolous or vexatious. The Registrar was satisfied that the documents were frivolous or vexatious.

3    The Registrar referred to Ms McGinn’s application being for judicial review under s 5 of the AD(JR) Act of a decision made by Fair Trading NSW pursuant to the provisions of the Motor Dealers and Repairers Act 2013 (NSW). The Registrar said that a decision by Fair Trading NSW pursuant to that legislation is not a decision to which the AD(JR) Act applies, because it is not a decision made under a relevant enactment or by a Commonwealth authority or by an officer of the Commonwealth under such a relevant enactment, and thus it would constitute an abuse of the Court’s process to accept the documents for filing.

4    The Registrar’s decision was entirely correct for the reasons given. Further, there is no merit in Ms McGinn’s argument that lack of jurisdiction is not a ground available under r 2.26 for a Registrar to refuse to accept a document for filing. There is no reason why a lack of jurisdiction cannot be the basis of an abuse of process or the basis for documents being vexatious or frivolous.

5    The originating application also seeks to challenge decisions made by the Registry to refuse Ms McGinn’s subsequent attempts to file the same documents as had already been rejected by Registrar Parkyn. No reviewable error has been established in relation to those decisions.

6    Further, Ms McGinn seeks summary judgment pursuant to r 26.01(1)(e), supported by an affidavit of 15 April 2025 which refers to the respondent having filed a submitting notice under r 12.01 as a party which does not want to contest the relief sought in the originating application. For the reasons given, in relation to NSD1825/2024 and NSD1867/2024 earlier today, I dismiss that application.

7    Ms McGinn informs me that she has requested that the present matter be referred to a Full Court by the Chief Justice under s 20(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), but has not yet received a response to that request. In the absence of any referral, I have heard and determined the matter myself.

Associate:

Dated:    11 July 2025