Cory v Registrar of the Federal Court of Australia

In this case, the applicant, Malcolm Cory, sought judicial review of a decision made by a Registrar of the Federal Court of Australia to wind up the company Heron Developments (in liquidation) Pty Ltd. The application for review was brought pursuant to s 39B(1A) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) and sought prerogative writs against the orders made by the Registrar on 8 October 2010. The applicant sought a writ of certiorari to quash the winding up order and a writ of prohibition against that order. Alternatively, the applicant sought a declaration that the orders made by the Registrar were made without jurisdiction or were otherwise materially affected by error, and should be set aside.

The legal issues the court was required to decide were whether the Registrar had the jurisdiction to make the winding up order, whether the Registrar breached the provisions of ss 440A and 440D of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), whether there was a breach of natural justice, and whether the Registrar’s determination was legally erroneous. The court found that the application for prerogative writs against the Registrar failed for the reason that judicial review does not lie from one judge to another. The court further found that the Registrar did have jurisdiction to make the winding up order and that s 440D did not operate in respect of this winding up application. The court also found that there was no breach of natural justice and that the Registrar’s determination was not legally erroneous. Accordingly, the application was dismissed and the applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the proceeding.

The court's reasoning was based on a number of authorities, including Bird v Free (1994) 126 ALR 475, Official Trustee in Bankruptcy v Nedlands Pty Ltd (in liq) (2000) 173 ALR 255; [2000] FCA 599, and Harris v Caladine (1991) 172 CLR 84. The court also considered the provisions of the Corporations Act and the Federal Court (Corporations) Rules. The court found that the applicant's arguments were without merit and that the application must be dismissed. The court ordered that the application be dismissed and that the applicant pay the costs of the proceeding.