Gale v Judicial Registrar Ditton

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Gale v Judicial Registrar Ditton [2024] FCA 730  

File number(s):

NSD 540 of 2024

Judgment of:

BROMWICH J

Date of judgment:

5 July 2024

Catchwords:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – application for judicial review of a Registrar’s decision under r 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) to reject documents for filing – whether original originating application and statement of claim fail to disclose a cause of action and are therefore an abuse of process, frivolous or vexatious – HELD: application dismissed with no order as to costs

Legislation:

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth)

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) Part IVA

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39B(1)

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 2.26

Division:

General Division

Registry:

New South Wales

National Practice Area:

Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights

Number of paragraphs:

11

Date of hearing:

5 July 2024

Counsel for the Applicant:

The Applicant appeared in person

Counsel for the Respondent:

The Respondent filed a submitting notice

ORDERS

NSD 540 of 2024

BETWEEN:

LUKE FRANCIS GALE

Applicant

AND:

JUDICIAL REGISTRAR DITTON

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	BROMWICH J
DATE OF ORDER:	5 JULY 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The originating application for judicial review dated 18 April 2024 be dismissed.

2.There be no order as to costs.

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered ex tempore, revised from the transcript)

BROMWICH J:

1. This is an application for judicial review of a decision by the respondent, a Judicial Registrar of this Court, not to accept for filing an originating application, statement of claim and genuine steps statement (the Documents).  The applicant had presented the Documents to the New South Wales Registry of the Court on 22 March 2024.  This Court has jurisdiction to review the Registrar’s decision under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) and in the exercise of its original jurisdiction conferred by s 39B(1) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth).

2. In presenting the Documents to the Court for filing, the applicant had sought to bring a case as a representative party under Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). The named respondents were the Commonwealth, the Director-General of Security and the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth. Under the heading “Details of claim” in the originating application, the applicant stated:

   That the respondent(s) had a state of mind, and engaged in conduct whereby Australian children and minors, within Australia, were subjected to military scientific experiments without their knowledge or consent in the 1970’s and that injury occurred as a result.

3. No members of the asserted group or class that the applicant purported to represent were identified beyond the above general description or the immediately following “Questions common to the claims of group members”:

   Did the Respondent(s) have a state of mind, and engage in conduct whereby Australian children and minors, within Australia, were subjected to military…