Federal Court of Australia

Reeve, in the matter of an application by Reeve [2026] FCA 1474

File number(s):

QUD 650 of 2026

Judgment of:

LONGBOTTOM J

Date of judgment:

12 October 2026

Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for leave to institute proceedings pursuant to r 2.27A of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – Where applicant seeks leave to file application for judicial review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) – Where proposed proceeding manifestly untenable – Application dismissed

Legislation:

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth), ss 3, 5(1)

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), rr 2.27, 2.27A, 2.27A(1), 2.27A(2)

Cases cited:

KTW25, in the matter of application by KTW25 for leave to file [2026] FCA 1114

Re Young [2020] HCA 13; (2020) 94 ALJR 448

Division:

General Division

Registry:

Queensland

National Practice Area:

Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights

Number of paragraphs:

8

Date of hearing:

Determined on the papers

Counsel for the Applicant:

The Applicant was self-represented

ORDERS

QUD 650 of 2026

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY OLIVER JAMES REEVE

OLIVER JAMES REEVE

Applicant

order made by:

LONGBOTTOM J

DATE OF ORDER:

12 octoBER 2026

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The application for leave to file the documents lodged with the Court on 16 September 2026 being:

(a)    the originating application for judicial review dated 14 September 2026; and

(b)    the supporting affidavit of the applicant dated 16 September 2026,

is dismissed without an oral hearing.

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

LONGBOTTOM J:

1    By ex parte application filed on 24 September 2026, the applicant, Oliver James Reeve, seeks leave under r 2.27A of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) to institute a proceeding naming the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and three of its employees as respondents.

2    The Applicant requires leave because of an order made on 18 September 2026 pursuant to r 2.27(f) of the Rules. The order directed that the documents constituting the proposed proceeding (comprising an originating application dated 14 September 2026, and a supporting affidavit of the applicant dated 16 September 2026) not be accepted for filing without the leave of the Court.

3    The ex parte application is to be determined on the papers unless the Court orders otherwise: Rules, r 2.27A(2). The ex parte application must be supported by an affidavit in which the applicant explains, concisely, why leave should be granted for proceedings to be instituted: Rules, r 2.27A(1)(c)(i).

relevant principles

4    The criteria governing the exercise of the discretion to grant leave under r 2.27A of the Rules are the same as those that apply to the similar procedure in the High Court where leave is required “to file a document when so directed by a judge”: KTW25, in the matter of application by KTW25 for leave to file [2026] FCA 1114 at [2] (Colvin J).

5    Leave to file will ordinarily be refused where the document appears “on its face” to be an abuse of process of the Court, to be frivolous or vexatious, or to fall outside the jurisdiction of the Court: cf, Re Young [2020] HCA 13; (2020) 94 ALJR 448 at [11] (Gageler J, as his Honour then was). What constitutes an abuse of process “cannot be confined within closed categories”, but encompasses an attempt to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court “on a basis that is confused or manifestly untenable”: cf, Re Young at [13]. That said, the discretion of the Court to “nip a proceeding in the bud” should only be exercised in the “clearest of cases”: cf, Re Young at [13].

consideration

6    The proposed proceeding seeks review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (ADJR Act) of ASIC’s refusal, communicated by letter dated 21 August 2026, to take regulatory action in relation to five reports of misconduct the applicant made between 17 November 2023 and 16 September 2025. The relief sought by the proposed originating application includes, in addition to substantive relief, interlocutory orders for the production of “the administrative record sufficient to establish”, amongst other matters, “who made the 21 August Decision”, “under what statutory authority it was made”, as well as the “involvement” of the employee respondents.

7    The proposed proceeding is manifestly untenable. The originating application asserts, but does not provide a discernible basis for deducing, that the position ASIC took with respect to the five misconduct reports is a decision to which the ADJR Act applies and in respect of which he is entitled to relief: cf, ADJR Act, s 3 (“decision to which this Act applies”) and s 5(1). The applicant acknowledges as much in the ex parte application, and the affidavit he filed in accordance with r 2.27A(1)(c) of the Rules, stating in the former that the “proposed proceeding may raise threshold questions concerning the availability of review under the [ADJR Act], including the character of the relevant ASIC decision or conduct”.

8    Leave to file the documents constituting the proposed proceeding is refused.

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

Associate:

Dated:    12 October 2026