Garrett and AGL (South Australia) Pty Ltd

[2025] ARTA 209

Garrett and AGL (South Australia) Pty Ltd [2025] ARTA 209 (13 March 2025)

Applicant:Andrew Morton Garrett

Respondent:  AGL (South Australia) Pty Ltd

Tribunal Number:                2025/1293

Tribunal:Deputy President Britten-Jones

Place:Melbourne

Date:13 March 2025  

Decision:Pursuant to s 101(1) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth), the Tribunal dismisses the application brought by the Applicant for review of the decision to disconnect his electricity.

Pursuant to s 101(2) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth), the Applicant must not, without leave of the Tribunal, make any subsequent application to the Tribunal in his name or the name of a related entity.

......................[SGD]..................................................

Deputy President Britten-Jones

Catchwords

Vexatious applicant – dismissal under s 101(1) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 – application to Tribunal to review decision to disconnect Applicant’s electricity – must seek leave to make further application under s 101(2) – multiple applications – history of vexatious proceedings

Legislation

Electricity Act 1996 (SA)

Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA)

Cases

Garrett v Commissioner of Taxation [2015] FCA 117
Garrett v Mildara Blass Ltd [2009] SASC 19

Garrett and Other [2020] AATA 1726

Secondary Materials

Explanatory Memorandum, Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2023 (Cth)

Statement of Reasons

1. The Applicant has applied to the Tribunal for review of a decision made by AGL (South Australia) Pty Ltd (AGL (SA)) to disconnect his electricity.

2. Pursuant to s 12 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (ART Act), the Tribunal only has the power to review a decision if an Act or legislative instrument provides for an application to be made to the Tribunal for review of the decision.

3. The decision made by AGL(SA) is not a reviewable decision because there is no Act or legislative instrument that provides for an application to be made to the Tribunal for review of the decision by AGL(SA).

4. AGL(SA) is a retail supplier of electricity in South Australia and is licensed under Part 3 of the Electricity Act 1996 (SA) (the South Australian Act) to carry on operations in the electricity supply industry. Section 70 of the South Australian Act provides the circumstances in which electricity may be disconnected. Part 8 of the South Australian Act provides for a review of certain decisions, including with respect to electricity disconnection. The first level of review is to a Technical Regulator as defined in the South Australian Act. The second level of review is to the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal pursuant to s 76 of the South Australian Act. There is no right of review to the Administrative Review Tribunal.

5. If the Applicant wishes to pursue a review of a decision to disconnect his electricity, then the South Australian Act provides the process of review, but it in no way involves the Administrative Review Tribunal. The application brought by the Applicant is misconceived, lacking in substance and has no reasonable prospects of success because there is no decision reviewable by the Administrative Review Tribunal.

6. Section 101(1) of the ART Act provides:

   (1)  The Tribunal may, at any time, dismiss an application made to the Tribunal if the Tribunal is satisfied that the application:

   (a)  is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance; or

   (b)  has no reasonable prospects of success; or

   (c)  is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Tribunal.

7. Pursuant to s 101(1) the Tribunal dismisses the application brought by the Applicant for review of the decision to disconnect his electricity.

   Order the Applicant to seek leave on subsequent applications

8. Section 101(2) of the ART Act provides:

   (2)  If the Tribunal dismisses an application (the substantive application) under subsection (1), the Tribunal may, on application by a party to the proceeding in relation to the substantive application or on its own initiative, order that the applicant for the substantive application must not, without leave of the Tribunal, make a subsequent application to the Tribunal of a specified kind or kinds.

9. Having dismissed the substantive application under s 101(1) of the ART Act, the Tribunal has the power on its own initiative to require the Applicant to obtain leave before making any subsequent application to the Tribunal. The Explanatory Memorandum provides that:[1]

   This aims to promote the efficient use of Tribunal resources, by preventing an applicant from repeatedly bringing the same or similar applications, and the Tribunal repeatedly having to go through the process of dismissing the application as frivolous or vexatious (for example). This clause is equivalent to section 42B of the AAT Act but extends the operation of section 42B(2) of the AAT Act so that the Tribunal can also make an order under subclause (2) on its own initiative.

   [1] Explanatory Memorandum, Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2023 (Cth) 90 [642].

10. In the past two months, the Applicant has made numerous applications to the Tribunal in his name or the name of entities related to him. The Applicant has included voluminous documentation with these applications.

11. The Tribunal has commenced dealing with these applications by opening a file and assigning a file number to them as follows:

Application Number	Date Lodged	Comment
2025/0764	01/02/2025	Seeking review of a letter from the Australian Financial Security Authority to the Applicant informing him that he remains restricted from registrations on the Personal Properties Securities Register.
2025/1010	07/02/2025	Applicant prohibited from instituting proceedings at the Federal Court of Australia without seeking leave and seeks review of a rejection to issue proceedings.
2025/1132	01/02/2025	Applicant seeking review of a deemed refusal of an FOI request. No application for internal review under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) has occurred.
2025/1133	01/02/2025	Seeking review of nolle prosequi orders entered on 29 July 2024 of a Court.
2025/1136	11/02/2025	Seeking review of Court orders made on 30 January 2009 and 6 November 2015 permanently staying a matter.
2025/1284	14/02/2025	Seeking to initiate proceedings to the Federal Court of Australia for events that occurred in or around 1990.
2025/1286	11/02/2025	Refers to correspondence of Australian Unity Bank dated 14 February 2025 choosing not to proceed application to open an account.
2025/1287	07/02/2025	Refers to correspondence of the Reserve Bank of Australia and nolle prosequi orders dated 29 July 2024 of the District Court of South Australia.
2025/1291	22/02/2025	Seeking review for claimed fraudulent trading of National Australia Bank.
2025/1528	26/02/2025	Seeking investigation for alleged cancelled ABNs and cancelled access to AUSTRAC’s online portal.

1. In addition, the Tribunal has received a very significant number of further emails and phone calls from the Applicant in relation to his applications.

2. The Applicant has not paid the prescribed fee for each of his applications for review. Pursuant to s 98 of the ART Act, read together with rule 24 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Rules 2024, the Tribunal may dismiss an application if the prescribed fee is not paid within 6 weeks from the date of the application. The Tribunal intends to exercise its power to dismiss the applications in the table if the fees are not paid within time. Further, the Tribunal notes that it would appear that the Applicant has failed to identify a reviewable decision in many, if not all, of his applications for review.

3. The Tribunal notes that orders have been made in the Federal Court in 2015 declaring the Applicant as a person who has frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings in Australian courts or tribunals and requiring him to seek leave before instituting proceedings in the Federal Court: Garrett v Commissioner of Taxation [2015] FCA 117. The Applicant has also been declared a vexatious litigant under s 39 of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA): Garrett v Mildara Blass Ltd [2009] SASC 19.

4. Mr Garrett had a history of making unmeritorious applications to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal before it was abolished. In Garrett and Other [2020] AATA 1726, the Tribunal said:

   [1] Since 20 April 2020 Andrew Garrett, or entities associated with him, have filed 71 separate applications for review with the Tribunal. It is apparent on the face of the vast majority of those applications that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction because they do not identify a Commonwealth enactment conferring jurisdiction or a Commonwealth decision-maker or, in some circumstances, any decision at all.

   [2] These reasons deal with 18 applications for review filed by Andrew Garrett in the period of 20 April to 28 April 2020 (“the applications”). Since that time Mr Garrett has filed a further 51 applications for review with the Tribunal, all of which have been dismissed in separate proceedings.

   …

   [70] The Tribunal dismisses these applications under s 42A(4) of the AAT Act because I am satisfied that none of the decisions in the applications for review are reviewable by the Tribunal.

5. In all the circumstances, the Tribunal considers it appropriate to order that the Applicant must not, without leave of the Tribunal, make any subsequent application to the Tribunal in his name or the name of a related entity in relation to any of his past affairs.

6. Pursuant to section 101(2) of the ART Act, the Tribunal orders that the Applicant must not, without leave of the Tribunal, make a subsequent application to the Tribunal for review of a decision.

18.     I certify that the preceding 17 (seventeen) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President Britten-Jones.

..................[sgd]......................................................

Associate

Dated: 13 March 2025