Ferdinands v Allaway, National Duty Registrar (No 2)

In Ferdinands v Allaway, National Duty Registrar (No 2), the applicant sought judicial review of the Registrar’s decision to refuse to accept documents for filing under rule 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). The Registrar had refused to accept the documents, stating they were an abuse of the process of the Court, frivolous and vexatious. The applicant sought to challenge the Registrar’s decision on various grounds, including the Registrar’s failure to properly assess certain matters. The court was required to determine whether the applicant had standing to seek judicial review of the Registrar’s decision and whether the decision was subject to review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth).

The court held that the Registrar’s decision to refuse to accept documents under rule 2.26 was an administrative decision and thus subject to judicial review. However, the application for judicial review did not identify the grounds in section 5(1) of the ADJR Act upon which the applicant relied. The court noted that the Registrar had not made a substantive judgment about the underlying merit of the claims in the proposed proceedings when refusing to accept an originating application for filing under FCR 2.26. Instead, the Registrar was ensuring compliance with procedural requirements by refusing to accept documents that were frivolous or vexatious. The court concluded that the Registrar’s decision did not involve an error of law or a failure to properly assess the merits of the proposed proceedings. Therefore, the application for judicial review was dismissed.

The court dismissed the application for judicial review filed on 19 July 2022. The Registrar’s decision to refuse to accept the documents for filing under rule 2.26 was upheld. The court found that the Registrar’s decision was an administrative decision subject to judicial review, but the application did not identify the grounds in section 5(1) of the ADJR Act upon which the applicant relied. The court held that the Registrar had not made a substantive judgment about the underlying merit of the claims in the proposed proceedings when refusing to accept the documents for filing. Instead, the Registrar was ensuring compliance with procedural requirements by refusing to accept documents that were frivolous or vexatious. The court concluded that the Registrar’s decision did not involve an error of law or a failure to properly assess the merits of the proposed proceedings.