Cristovao v Registrar Trott

In this case, Cristovao appealed against the decision of the Registrars to refuse to accept documents for filing, which was reviewed by the court. The appellant, Cristovao, argued that the Registrars were obliged to provide him with legal assistance, and he complained that the letters from the first and second respondents to him on 17 and 27 April 2018 should be reviewed as erroneous decisions not to provide him that advice. However, the court found that this argument was misconceived, as neither of those letters amounted to a decision under an enactment and nothing in them was subject to review under the AD(JR) Act or s 39B of the Judiciary Act.

The court further held that the Registrars of the Federal Court might provide advice as to the administrative workings of the rules, but it is not part of their function to provide legal advice. The Registrars acted entirely properly in informing Mr Cristovao of their decision and the reasons for it. They were right to decline to respond to the numerous questions asked of them. Each responded to legitimate queries raised by Mr Cristovao, and provided an explanation as to why it was not appropriate for the Registry to give him legal advice. Mr Cristovao made a number of allegations which speculated as to the reasons as to why he was not given assistance by the Registry, but none of them had any substance. The court found that the appellant's arguments were spurious, and rejected them. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal.

Subsequent to the hearing of the appeal, Mr Cristovao sent an email to the Court in which he sought to make further submissions concerning the substance of the appeal. The Court found it inappropriate to receive or consider those uninvited submissions. Unless otherwise ordered, the hearing of matters is to occur in open Court and not through correspondence. The Court did not deal with those additional submissions.