Frigger v Parkyn

Case [2021] FCA 224

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Frigger v Parkyn [2021] FCA 224

File number: WAD 20 of 2021
Judgment of: JACKSON J
Date of judgment: 15 March 2021
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - application for judicial review - decision of registrar not to accept documents for filing - open to registrar to find that documents were frivolous or vexatious on their face - application dismissed
Legislation:

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) s 5

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 445C, 459P, 471A, 472, 1324

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 2.26
Cases cited:

A v State of New South Wales [2007] HCA 10; (2007) 230 CLR 500

Fencott v Muller (1983) 152 CLR 570

Frigger v Trott [2021] FCA 18

Johnson v Gore Wood & Co (a firm) [2002] 2 AC 1

Lee v Abedian [2016] QSC 92; [2017] 1 Qd R 549

Perera v Genworth Financial Mortgage Insurance Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCA 10

Re Rules of Supreme Court 1971 (WA); Ex parte Kingsfield Holdings Pty Ltd [2021] WASC 16

Re Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA); Ex parte Gates [2018] WASC 213

Shaw v Buljan [2016] FCA 829; (2016) 153 ALD 252
Division: General Division
Registry: Western Australia
National Practice Area: Other Federal Jurisdiction
Number of paragraphs: 41
Date of hearing: Determined on the papers
Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant was self-represented
Counsel for the Respondent: The respondent filed a submitting notice

ORDERS

WAD 20 of 2021
BETWEEN:

ANGELA CECILIA THERESA FRIGGER

Applicant
AND:

REGISTRAR NICOLAS PARKYN

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JACKSON J

DATE OF ORDER:

15 MARCH 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for judicial review dated 3 February 2021 is dismissed.

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


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

JACKSON J:

  1. In Frigger v Trott [2021] FCA 18, I set aside a decision of a registrar of this court to refuse to accept for filing an originating process and affidavit in support that were lodged by the present applicant and her husband, Hartmut Frigger. Mrs and Mr Frigger subsequently lodged amended versions of both documents. The present respondent, a different registrar, has refused to accept that second lodgement for filing. Mrs Frigger now applies for judicial review of that refusal. The respondent has filed a submitting appearance.

  2. For the following reasons, the application is dismissed.

    The respondent's decision

  3. The respondent informed Mrs and Mr Frigger of his decision by a letter dated 3 February 2021.  He did not give detailed reasons.  After referring to the two documents that had been lodged (on 29 January 2021) the letter said:

    I have carefully considered the content of your documents and advise that I am unable to accept your documents for filing pursuant to Rule 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

    Rule 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 provides that:

    A Registrar may refuse to accept a document (including a document that would, if accepted, become an originating application) if the…

Continue reading Frigger v Parkyn

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Frigger v Parkyn [2021] FCA 224
Case
[2021] FCA 224
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mrs and Mr Frigger sought judicial review of a decision of the registrar of the Federal Court not to accept documents they had lodged for filing. The registrar's decision was made pursuant to Rule 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), which allows a registrar to refuse to accept documents if they are an abuse of process or are frivolous or vexatious on their face. The Friggers argued that the registrar's decision was unreasonable and that he had not taken into account relevant facts in reaching his decision. They also submitted that the registrar had no jurisdiction to summarily dismiss their claims in the manner of a strike out or summary judgment application.

The court considered whether the registrar's decision was an improper exercise of power and whether it involved an error of law. The court noted that the registrar had the discretion to find that documents were frivolous or vexatious on their face and that the Friggers had not demonstrated that the registrar's decision was unreasonable. The court also held that the registrar had jurisdiction to summarily dismiss the claims if they were frivolous or vexatious on their face. The Friggers' argument that the registrar had not taken into account relevant facts was rejected because the court found that the registrar was not required to conduct a detailed assessment of the merits of the claims before deciding whether to accept the documents for filing.

The court dismissed the application for judicial review. The court held that the registrar's decision was not an improper exercise of power and did not involve an error of law. The court also held that the registrar was entitled to find that the documents were frivolous or vexatious on their face and that he had jurisdiction to summarily dismiss the claims. The court noted that the Friggers had not demonstrated that the registrar's decision was unreasonable or that he had failed to take into account relevant facts.

The court made no orders for costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application for judicial review dated 3 February 2021 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

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

For the following reasons, the application is dismissed.The respondent's decision The respondent informed Mrs and Mr Frigger of his decision by a letter dated 3 February 2021. He did not give detailed reasons. After referring to the two documents that had been lodged (on 29 January 2021) the letter said:I have carefully considered the content of your documents and advise that I am unable to accept your documents for filing pursuant to Rule 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.Rule 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 provides that:A Registrar may refuse to accept a document (including a document that would, if accepted, become an originating application) if the Registrar is satisfied that the document is an abuse of the process of the Court or is frivolous or vexatious:(a) on the face of the document; or(b) by reference to any documents already filed or submitted for filing with the document.I am satisfied having considered the documents you have sought to file that they are on their face frivolous or vexatious. It would constitute an abuse of the process of the Court if they were accepted for filing.The basis on which judicial review is sought Despite the brevity of the respondent's letter, Mrs Frigger does not challenge it on the basis of inadequacy of reasons (when it is evident from her having argued that point in her previous application for judicial review that she was aware of that as a potential ground: see Frigger v Trott at [22]‑[28]). Rather, the grounds stated in the originating application are that:1.The making of the decision was an improper exercise of the power conferred by Federal Court Rule 2.26 in pursuance of which it was purported to be made.2.The decision involves an error of law. These grounds correspond to s 5(1)(e) and s 5(1)(f) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (ADJR Act) and I will treat the application as being based on those provisions. Mrs Frigger's written submissions are mostly taken up with seeking to demonstrate that the claims sought to be made in the rejected documents have merit. They conclude by saying that in those circumstances the respondent erred 'at law' in rejecting the documents because:(a)It was not possible to reach the necessary state of satisfaction in the circumstances of 120 facts which appear on the face of the rejected documents and the judicial findings of fact referred [to] … above;(b)He had no regard to 120 facts appearing on the face of the rejected documents when forming his opinion;(c)His decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable person would have reached it;(d)He has no jurisdiction to summarily dismiss the plaintiffs' claims in the manner of a strike out application or summary judgment application;(e)Registrar Trott was not satisfied that the same claims contained in Lodgement 909455 were frivolous or vexatious. Mrs Frigger thus submits that the respondent's opinion was not one that was open to him to form, and the state of satisfaction required by r 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), (that the documents are an abuse of process or are frivolous or vexatious) could not have been reached.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.