Ferdinands v Registrar Cridland

Link copied
Case Copied 26 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Ferdinands v Registrar Cridland [2022] FCAFC 80

Appeal from:

Ferdinands v Registrar Cridland [2021] FCA 592

Ferdinands v Registrar Parkyn [2020] FCA 1676
File numbers: SAD 102 of 2021
SAD 172 of 2020
Judgment of: CHARLESWORTH, BURLEY AND CHEESEMAN JJ
Date of judgment: 16 May 2022
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — concurrent appeals – appellant lodging documents for filing – Registrars rejecting the documents under r 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – primary judge dismissing applications for judicial review of the Registrars’ decisions —primary judge concluding that the Registrars did not err in characterising the documents as an abuse of process, vexatious or frivolous—primary judge concluding that r 2.26 did not confer judicial power—primary judge concluding that the litigation sought to be commenced by the appellant was beyond the jurisdiction of the Court and foredoomed to fail — no appealable error – appeals – appeals dismissed
Legislation:

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) ss 3, 5

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 180, 181, 182, 183, 184

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 78B

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 2.26

Civil Liability Act 1936 (SA)
Cases cited:

Bechara v Bates (2021) 286 FCR 166

Bizuneh v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2003) 128 FCR 353

Ferdinands v Registrar Cridland [2021] FCA 592

Ferdinands v Registrar Parkyn [2020] FCA 1676

Nyoni v Murphy (2018) 261 FCR 164

Rana v Google Inc (2017) 254 FCR 1

Division: General Division
Registry: South Australia
National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Number of paragraphs: 49
Date of last submission: SAD102/2021 Appellant:  25 February 2022
SAD172/2020 Appellant:  25 February 2022
Date of hearing: Determined on the papers
SAD 102 of 2021
Counsel for the Appellant: The Appellant was self-represented
Counsel for the Respondent: The Respondent did not appear
SAD 172 of 2021
Counsel for the Appellant: The Appellant was self-represented
Counsel for the Respondent: The Respondent filed a Submitting Notice

ORDERS

SAD 102 of 2021
BETWEEN:

TREVOR KINGSLEY FERDINANDS

Appellant
AND:

MEREDITH CRIDLAND, NATIONAL REGISTRAR, FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Respondent
SAD 172 of 2020
BETWEEN:

TREVOR KINGSLEY FERDINANDS

Appellant
AND:

NIC PARKYN, ACTING NATIONAL JUDICAL REGISTRAR AND DISTRICT REGISTRAR,
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

CHARLESWORTH, BURLEY AND CHEESEMAN JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

16 MAY 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal is dismissed.

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


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

  1. On 14 August 2020 and 11 November 2020 the appellant lodged documents in the South Australia District Registry.  On each occasion a Registrar refused to accept the documents for filing (refusal decisions).  The appellant commenced separate applications for judicial review in respect of each refusal decision.  Both applications were dismissed:  Ferdinands v Registrar Parkyn [2020] FCA 1676 (Ferdinands v Parkyn); Ferdinands v Registrar Cridland [2021] FCA 592 (Ferdinands v Cridland).

  2. The appellant appeals from each of the judgments in Ferdinands v…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ferdinands v Registrar Cridland and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2022] FCAFC 80
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The concurrent appeals in Ferdinands v Registrar Cridland were brought by a former member of the South Australia Police, Mr Ferdinands, against the Registrars who rejected documents he had lodged for filing. Mr Ferdinands had previously been convicted of assault, dismissed from the police force, and lost a legal challenge against that dismissal. He believed he had been the victim of a conspiracy and sought the full file on his case, including video evidence, from the Attorney General's Department, the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Commissioner of Police in South Australia. When these bodies did not respond to his request, Mr Ferdinands sought to bring a case against the Premier of South Australia, alleging breaches of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The Registrars rejected the documents under rule 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), and Mr Ferdinands sought judicial review of that decision.

The primary judge dismissed Mr Ferdinands' applications for judicial review, concluding that the Registrars had not erred in characterising the documents as an abuse of process, vexatious or frivolous. The judge also found that rule 2.26 did not confer judicial power and that the litigation sought to be commenced by Mr Ferdinands was beyond the jurisdiction of the Court and foredoomed to fail. The primary judge found no appealable error in the Registrars' decisions.

The appeals were dismissed by the court. The court found no basis for the appeals and upheld the primary judge's decision. The appeals were dismissed with no orders for costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is 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

The primary judge provided the following brief summary of the appellant’s factual assertions as contained in the documents. The correctness of that summary is not subject to challenge. It is convenient to reproduce it here:11Between 1986 and 2001, the applicant was a member of South Australia Police. In 2001, the applicant was charged on summons by South Australia Police on one count of common assault against an arrested person held in the City Watch House. He was convicted and fined. The applicant’s appeal against his conviction was dismissed by a judge in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The applicant was dismissed from SA Police by reason of the offence. He then commenced proceedings in the Industrial Court of South Australia seeking relief in respect of that dismissal but it ruled that it did not have jurisdiction in the matter. That decision was upheld in the Supreme Court of South Australia (Ferdinands v Commissioner for Public Employment [2004] SASC 30) and by the High Court: Ferdinands v Commissioner for Public Employment [2006] HCA 5; (2006) 225 CLR 130.12The applicant continues to be dissatisfied with that outcome. Over the succeeding years, has commenced proceedings in different courts with a view to pursuing his complaints. The applicant has come to believe that he has been the victim of a conspiracy in the criminal and curial processes in and since 2001.13On Saturday, 1 August 2020, the applicant wrote to the Honourable Steven Marshall MP, the current Premier of South Australia, at Parliament House, Adelaide. The subject line of the letter was as follows:Re: Trevor Kingsley Ferdinands – FERDINANDS V POLICE [2001] SASC – Video Tape evidence14The letter commenced with a statement of the applicant’s purpose in writing to the Premier:My purpose in writing is to advise you that I have been seeking for some time the full and complete file including video tape evidence from [the] Attorney General’s Department including Director of Public Prosecutions and Commissioner of Police in [the] State of South Australia.That file has not been made available to me.The matters are now bound for the Federal Court of Australia as they involve matters of due diligence pursuant to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to which you are bound by (sic).15The letter then went on to request intervention by the Premier so as to facilitate the provision to the applicant of various documents including the video tape of evidence used in his Magistrates Court trial, the personal notes of the Magistrate who heard the trial, the personal notes of the Supreme Court Judge who dismissed the appeal against conviction, as well as other documents. It extended over three pages and it is not easy to summarise its contents succinctly.16 The applicant concluded the letter by saying:As Premier you are required to show due diligence and duty of care yet you have refused to. I shall seek to bring this action as soon as possible to determine whether you have breached your due diligence provisions and duty for (sic) care provisions under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).I hope to hear from you within 14 days with all evidence thereafter I shall file judicial review in the Federal Court of Australia.17So far as the materials lodged by the applicant for filing with the Court indicate, the Premier had not made any response to the applicant’s request by 14 August 2020 when the applicant lodged the documents for filing in the Court.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.