FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Frigger v Trott [2021] FCA 18
File number(s): WAD 229 of 2020 Judgment of: JACKSON J Date of judgment: 25 January 2021 Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - application for judicial review - decision of Registrar not to accept documents for filing - whether Registrar provided adequate reasons for decision – reasons given were adequate - Registrar took into account applicants' prior litigious history that was not apparent on the face of the documents - application allowed and decision set aside Legislation: Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) ss 5, 13, 16, Sch 2
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) Sch 2
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 2.26
Federal Court (Corporations) Rules 2000 (Cth) rr 1.3(1)(a), 2.1
Cases cited: Bizuneh v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 42; (2003) 128 FCR 353
Chan v Harris (No 2) [2010] FCA 1393
Cristovao v Registrar Trott [2019] FCAFC 88
Cristovao v Trott [2018] FCA 1605
McVeigh v Willara Pty Ltd (1984) 6 FCR 587
Nyoni v Murphy [2018] FCAFC 75; (2018) 261 FCR 164
Paramasivam v Randwick City Council [2005] FCA 369
Public Service Board (NSW) v Osmond (1986) 159 CLR 656
Reaper v Luxton [2017] FCA 949
Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd [2009] FCA 1171; (2009) 260 ALR 567
Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd [2010] FCAFC 47; 268 ALR 222
Secretary, Dept of Sustainability and Environment (Vic) v Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (Cth) [2013] FCA 1; (2013) 209 FCR 215
Shaw v Buljan [2016] FCA 829; (2016) 153 ALD 252
Division: General Division Registry: Western Australia National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Number of paragraphs: 422 Date of hearing: Determined on the papers Counsel for the Applicants: The applicants were self-represented Solicitor for the Respondent: The respondent filed a submitting notice save as to costs ORDERS
WAD 229 of 2020 BETWEEN: ANGELA CECILIA THERESA FRIGGER
First Applicant
HARTMUT HUBERT JOSEF FRIGGER
Second Applicant
AND: REGISTRAR TROTT
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JACKSON J
DATE OF ORDER:
25 JANUARY 2021
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to s 16(1)(a) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth), the decision of the respondent notified in his letter of 2 October 2020 to the applicants is set aside with effect from the date of this order.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JACKSON J:
The applicants, Mrs and Mr Frigger, have applied under s 5 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (ADJR Act) for review of a decision of the respondent, a registrar of this court, not to accept an originating process and supporting affidavit for filing. The Registrar has filed an appearance submitting to any order the court may make, save as…
Continue reading Frigger v Trott
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Frigger v Trott [2021] FCA 18
- Case
- [2021] FCA 18
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues in the case included whether the Registrar had provided adequate reasons for his decision, and whether he had taken into account irrelevant considerations in reaching his decision. The court considered whether the Registrar had taken into account matters which were not apparent on the face of the documents, and whether this was an error of law. The court also considered whether the Registrar's concern that CAT should not be named in the heading to the documents was unreasonable.
The court found that the Registrar's reasons for refusing to accept the documents for filing were adequate. The court considered that it was appropriate to address the issue of whether the Registrar had taken into account irrelevant considerations in reaching his decision, even though the applicants had not raised this issue. The court found that the Registrar had taken into account the applicants' prior litigious history which was not apparent on the face of the documents, and that this was an error of law. However, the court found that this error did not result in a failure of justice, and that the Registrar's decision should not be set aside. The court held that there was no error of law in the Registrar's concern that CAT should not be named in the heading to the documents, and that this concern was not unreasonable.
The final orders of the court were that the decision of the Registrar was set aside with effect from the date of the order, and that the applicants' application for judicial review was dismissed. The court held that there was no error of law in the Registrar's decision, and that the Registrar's reasons for refusing to accept the documents for filing were adequate. The court also held that the Registrar's concern that CAT should not be named in the heading to the documents was not unreasonable. The applicants' appeal against the Registrar's decision was dismissed, and the application for judicial review was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Pursuant to s 16(1)(a) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth), the decision of the respondent notified in his letter of 2 October 2020 to the applicants is set aside with effect from the date of this order.
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
There is therefore no error of law disclosed in the Registrar's concern that CAT should not be named in the heading to the documents. Nor is that concern unreasonable. I do not uphold the applicants' complaint in relation to that issue. Consideration of matters not appearing on the face of the documents Given that the applicants are self-represented litigants I consider it appropriate to address another issue which they have not raised, but which does arise on the face of the materials in this proceeding. I have referred above to Paramasivam, SZVCP and Reaper. They indicate that if a registrar forms the necessary state of satisfaction under r 2.26 after taking into the litigious history of an applicant or taking into account documents filed in different proceedings, he or she will have taken an irrelevant consideration into account, which can found judicial review under s 5 of the ADJR Act on the basis that it involves taking into account an irrelevant consideration. I consider that those principles are applicable here. The first reason the Registrar gave for refusing to accept the documents for filing was that it appeared they raised issues that had already been dealt with by this court in previous proceedings commenced by the applicants. It is difficult to see how he could have formed that view without referring to documents filed in those earlier proceedings, or basing it on his own acquaintance with and knowledge of those proceedings as gained in the past. The documents sought to be filed do not describe any issues as having been previously dealt with by this court. I infer that the Registrar must have gained the knowledge on which he relied from some source other than the two documents which were sought to be filed. And as the proceeding had not been commenced at the time, there was no other document 'already filed' within the meaning of r 2.26(b): see SZVCP at [28]. It is true that there are references to two previous proceedings in this court in the affidavit of Mrs Frigger which was rejected for filing. One reference is made in the body of the affidavit, the other is found in a deed which is annexed to it. But nothing in the Registrar's letter suggests that his view was formed on the basis of those references. They merely disclosed the existence and matter number of each proceeding. They say nothing about the subject matter or other content of the proceedings. A mere reference to a proceeding by matter number gives no immediate or apparent information as to what the proceeding is about. The Registrar can only have reached the view that he did on the basis of aspects of the litigious history of the applicants which do not appear on the face of the documents he refused to accept here: see Paramasivam at [45]. It is true that in Cristovao v Trott [2018] FCA 1605 at [48] Banks-Smith J held that the registrar was permitted to have regard to a decision of the Full Court which was referred to in the document which had not been accepted for filing. But in that case, the document was an interlocutory application which the applicant wanted to bring in the same proceeding as the Full Court decision in question. In endorsing her Honour's reasoning, the Full Court which determined the appeal from her decision said (Cristovao v Registrar Trott [2019] FCAFC 88 at [21]):We also agree with the observations of her Honour to the effect that, although r 2.26 refers to a finding that is to be made on the face of the documents lodged, the rule clearly permits Registrars to have regard to the content of the file of the Court in relation to the matter in which the document is filed, including any judgment delivered in it. Were it otherwise the Registrars would be denied knowledge of the orders which gave rise to the application. The orders and the fact that they were properly entered inform the context in which the Registrars make their decision: Shaw v Buljan (2016) 153 ALD 252, [55].Although the registrar can have regard to matters which form part of the immediate context of the document sought to be filed because they are part of the same proceeding, that does not authorise consideration of matters arising in different proceedings, which proceedings are merely referred to in passing in the document.