Barkla v Colbran

Case [2015] FCA 1470


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Barkla v Colbran [2015] FCA 1470

Citation: Barkla v Colbran [2015] FCA 1470
Parties: GEOFF BARKLA v NICOLA COLBRAN
File numbers: SAD 403 of 2015
SAD 410 of 2015
SAD 416 of 2015
Judge: BESANKO J
Date of judgment: 21 December 2015
Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for judicial review of the District Registrar’s decision not to accept the applicant’s originating application and affidavit for filing – application for judicial review of the District Registrar’s decision not to accept the applicant’s information and summons for filing – where the applicant claimed the District Registrar acted fraudulently, dishonestly and in abuse of public office by not accepting the documents – whether the Federal Court has jurisdiction to hear the application and issue the information and summons the applicant sought to file – Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 2.26.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – information and summons issued by the applicant against the District Registrar in relation to the District Registrar’s decisions not to accept applicant’s documents for filing – whether the Court has jurisdiction to issue the information and summons – whether the proceeding is without merit and is an abuse of process – Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 26.01.

Held: Proceedings dismissed.

Legislation: Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) s 5
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 35A(1)
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 1.40, 2.26, 12.01, 26.01, 31.01
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39B
Cases cited: Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Limited [2010] FCAFC 47
Date of hearing: 18 December 2015
Place: Adelaide
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 20
Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent: The Respondent entered Submitting Notices in SAD 403 of 2015 and SAD 410 of 2015

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

SAD 403 of 2015

BETWEEN:

GEOFF BARKLA
Applicant

AND:

NICOLA COLBRAN
Respondent

JUDGE:

BESANKO J

DATE OF ORDER:

21 DECEMBER 2015

WHERE MADE:

ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The proceeding be dismissed.

2.Any application for costs by the District Registrar to be made within 21 days.

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


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

SAD 410 of 2015

BETWEEN:

GEOFF BARKLA
Applicant

AND:

NICOLA COLBRAN
Respondent

JUDGE:

BESANKO J

DATE OF ORDER:

21 DECEMBER 2015

WHERE MADE:

ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The proceeding be dismissed.

2.Any application for costs by the District Registrar to be made within 21 days.

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


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

SAD 416 of 2015

BETWEEN:

GEOFF BARKLA
Applicant

AND:

NICOLA COLBRAN
Respondent

JUDGE:

BESANKO J

DATE OF ORDER:

21 DECEMBER 2015

WHERE MADE:

ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The proceeding be dismissed.

Note:…

Continue reading Barkla v Colbran

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Barkla v Colbran [2015] FCA 1470
Case
[2015] FCA 1470
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Barkla v Colbran, the applicant sought judicial review of the District Registrar's decision to refuse to accept their originating application and affidavit for filing, as well as the Registrar's refusal to accept an information and summons. The applicant alleged that the District Registrar acted fraudulently, dishonestly, and in abuse of public office by not accepting the documents. The Federal Court was tasked with determining whether it had jurisdiction to hear the application and issue the information and summons sought by the applicant, and whether the proceeding was without merit and constituted an abuse of process.

The court had to address whether it had jurisdiction under the Federal Court Rules 2011 to hear the application and issue the summons. Additionally, the court considered whether the proceeding was an abuse of process and without merit, as per Rule 26.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. The applicant's claims against the District Registrar were evaluated to determine if they warranted judicial intervention.

The court dismissed the proceeding, finding that the application did not meet the jurisdictional requirements of the Federal Court. The court held that the proceeding was without merit and an abuse of process, thus affirming the District Registrar's decision not to accept the applicant's documents for filing. The court's decision was based on the applicant's failure to establish a valid legal basis for the claims made against the District Registrar. The applicant was also ordered to pay the District Registrar's costs within 21 days, as per Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The proceeding be dismissed.

2. Any application for costs by the District Registrar to be made within 21 days.

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

1. The proceeding be dismissed.

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

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.