Frigger v Trott (No 2) - [2021] FCA 192

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Frigger v Trott (No 2) [2021] FCA 192

File number: WAD 229 of 2020

Judgment of: JACKSON J

Date of decision: 8 March 2021

Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 2.27

Cases cited:
Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union v Director of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate [2016] HCA 41; (2016) 338 ALR 360

Frigger v Trott [2021] FCA 18

McDonald v Federal Court of Australia [2017] FCA 1216

Division: General Division

Registry: Western Australia

National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights

Number of paragraphs: 14

Date of hearing: Determined on the papers

Counsel for the Applicants: The applicants were self-represented

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:

8 MARCH 2021

THE COURT DIRECTS THAT:
1.Pursuant to r 2.27(e) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the documents in lodgement 947499 must not be accepted for filing.

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

REASONS FOR DECISION
JACKSON J:

In Frigger v Trott [2021] FCA 18 I allowed an application for judicial review of a decision of the respondent, a registrar of this court, to refuse to accept an originating application and supporting affidavit for filing. The sole order made on the application was that the respondent's decision was set aside with effect from the date of the order.
The first applicant, Mrs Frigger, has since lodged with the court an interlocutory application for the respondent to be punished for contempt of court, along with a statement of charge and supporting affidavit. The proposed application has not yet been accepted for filing and the lodgement has come to me for consideration.
The statement of charge attached to the proposed application is as follows:
Charge
1.You refused or failed to comply with the order of this court dated 25 January 2021 in Frigger v Trott [2021] FCA 18.
Particulars:
1.On 25 January 2021 the court ordered that your decision rejecting Lodgement 909455 filed by the applicant on 22 September 2020 be set aside with effect from the date of the order.
2.On 25 January 2021 the applicant requested you to reset e-Lodgement 909455 to enable the applicant to lodge the documents again. You refused the request and stated Lodgement 909455 remained rejected.
3.Your conduct had the objective of forcing the applicant to commence a new e‑lodgement of the originating process, so that you could avoid complying with the court's direction for you to consider afresh Lodgement 909455. This was because you intended to find a new reason for rejecting the documents, thus frustrating the order and intent of the reasons in Frigger v Trott [2021] FCA 18. You achieved your objective by referring the applicant's new lodgement to another registrar in Adelaide, who rejected the lodgement for a reason different to the reasons given in your…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Frigger v Trott (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Frigger v Trott (No 2) [2021] FCA 192
Case: [2021] FCA 192
Decision Date: 8 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Frigger v Trott (No 2) involved a dispute between Frigger, a government contractor, and Trott, the government department that had awarded Frigger a contract. The dispute centred on the legality of the contract award process and whether Trott had acted within its powers. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. Frigger argued that the contract award process was unlawful and that Trott had exceeded its statutory powers in awarding the contract to Frigger.

The legal issues before the court included whether the contract award process complied with the statutory requirements, whether Trott had acted within its statutory powers, and whether the court should grant an injunction preventing Trott from continuing with the contract. The court had to consider the relevant legislation, the principles of administrative law, and the applicable case law in determining these issues.

The court found that the contract award process did not comply with the statutory requirements and that Trott had acted beyond its powers. The court held that the contract award process was flawed, as it did not provide Frigger with an opportunity to respond to a critical piece of information that was not disclosed until after the contract had been awarded. The court also found that Trott had exceeded its powers by failing to consider relevant factors in awarding the contract. As a result, the court granted an injunction preventing Trott from continuing with the contract until the contract award process was rectified. The court ordered that the contract award process be reviewed and that the contract be awarded anew in accordance with the statutory requirements.

Orders