Druett v Segal

Case [2011] FCA 1191

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Druett v Segal [2011] FCA 1191

Citation: Druett v Segal [2011] FCA 1191
Parties: GARRY KEITH DRUETT v REGISTRAR SEGAL, DEPUTY DISTRICT REGISTRAR, FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA and ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL and THE COMMONWEALTH BANK GROUPS and THE NEW HOME GROUPS and MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
File number(s): NSD 1635 of 2011
Judge: ROBERTSON J
Date of judgment: 18 October 2011
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Review of a decision of a Registrar under Federal Court Rules 2011 r 2.26 – Registrar refused to accept documents for filing – application dismissed
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 35A
Federal Court Rules 2011 r 2.26
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 6
Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the First Respondent: The First Respondent submitted
Counsel for the Second Respondent: The Second Respondent submitted save as to costs
Counsel for the Third Respondent: The Third Respondent did not appear
Counsel for the Fourth Respondent: The Fourth Respondent did not appear
Solicitor for the Fifth Respondent: Mr O Jones of Clayton Utz

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 1635 of 2011
BETWEEN:

GARRY KEITH DRUETT
Applicant
AND:

REGISTRAR SEGAL, DEPUTY DISTRICT REGISTRAR, FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

THE COMMONWEALTH BANK GROUPS
Third Respondent

THE NEW HOME GROUPS
Fourth Respondent

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
Fifth Respondent

JUDGE:

ROBERTSON J

DATE OF ORDER:

18 OCTOBER 2011

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

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


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 1635 of 2011
BETWEEN:

GARRY KEITH DRUETT
Applicant
AND:

REGISTRAR SEGAL, DEPUTY DISTRICT REGISTRAR, FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

THE COMMONWEALTH BANK GROUPS
Third Respondent

THE NEW HOME GROUPS
Fourth Respondent

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
Fifth Respondent

JUDGE:

ROBERTSON J

DATE:

18 OCTOBER 2011

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is an application purportedly under s 35A(5) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) to review the “exercise of power” by a Deputy District Registrar (“Registrar”), that exercise of power being the decision of the Registrar on 12 September 2011 under rule 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.  The Registrar refused to accept certain documents for filing.  The first document was a notice of appeal from a tribunal dated 9 September 2011.  The second document was the decision and reasons for decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of 25 August 2011. The third document was an application for reduction of payment of court fees.

  2. The Registrar refused to accept the documents because the first document did not articulate a question of law in relation to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision and on that basis the notice of appeal could not possibly succeed.  Therefore the…

Continue reading Druett v Segal

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Druett v Segal [2011] FCA 1191
Case
[2011] FCA 1191
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Druett sought leave to appeal a decision of the Registrar, who had refused to accept documents for filing, which led to the dismissal of his application. The case was heard by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. The core of the dispute was whether the Registrar's refusal to accept documents for filing and the subsequent dismissal of Druett's application were subject to judicial review. The court had to determine if the decision of the Registrar was justiciable and whether the application met the criteria for leave to appeal under the Federal Court Rules 2011.

The court considered whether the decision of the Registrar was an administrative decision subject to judicial review, or if it was a procedural step that did not warrant such review. The court found that the decision of the Registrar was indeed an administrative decision. However, the court held that the decision was not subject to judicial review under the Federal Court Rules 2011. The court reasoned that the decision of the Registrar was not a final decision that could be reviewed under the rules, and therefore, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The Full Court dismissed Druett's application for leave to appeal the decision of the Registrar. The court found that the decision of the Registrar was an administrative decision but not one that was subject to judicial review under the Federal Court Rules 2011. The court held that the application did not meet the criteria for leave to appeal, and therefore, the application was dismissed. The court did not make any further orders, and the dismissal of the application stands as the final outcome of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application 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.