Gilbert v Parkyn

Case [2025] FCA 1182

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Gilbert v Parkyn [2025] FCA 1182

File number: WAD 125 of 2025
Judgment of: JACKSON J
Date of judgment: 30 September 2025
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 - open to Registrar to find that the documents did not substantially comply with the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) - application dismissed
Legislation:

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

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) Sch 2 (Insolvency Practice Schedule (Bankruptcy)) ss 90-15, 9-20

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 2.26, 2.27, 16.02
Cases cited:

AMB19 v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCA 439

Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2003] HCA 26

Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550

Luck v Principal Registrar and Chief Executive Officer of the Federal Court of Australia (Permanent Stay) [2024] FCA 1256

Mbuzi v Curnow (Registrar) [2025] FCA 213

Nyoni v Murphy [2018] FCAFC 75; (2018) 261 FCR 164

Pearson v Ng [2015] FCA 1160

Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Limited [2010] FCAFC 47

Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378
Division: General Division
Registry: Western Australia
National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Number of paragraphs: 32
Date of hearing: Determined on the papers
Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant is self-represented
Counsel for the Respondent: The respondent filed a submitting notice

ORDERS

WAD 125 of 2025
BETWEEN:

JOHN WESLEY GILBERT

Applicant
AND:

REGISTRAR NIC PARKYN

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JACKSON J

DATE OF ORDER:

30 SEPTEMBER 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application 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. The applicant, Mr Gilbert, seeks judicial review of a decision by a Registrar of the Court to refuse to accept certain documents for filing.  The Registrar has filed a submitting notice.  For the following reasons the application will be dismissed.

    The documents sought to be filed

  2. The documents Mr Gilbert sought to file with the Court were an originating application (Proposed Application) and a statement of claim.  He lodged the documents with the Court on 31 March 2025.

  3. It is only necessary to provide the briefest background.  Mr Gilbert is currently an undischarged bankrupt.  According to his affidavit evidence, the debt on which the bankruptcy petition was based was founded on a costs order, apparently made by the District Court of Western Australia.  It seems that in proceedings in that court, Mr Gilbert had been seeking to recover a debt he claimed was owed to him by a company called Sila Australia Pty Ltd.

  4. The claim Mr Gilbert wishes to make in this Court was set out in the Proposed Application as follows:

    1.        Section 60(2) Of The Bankruptcy Act 1966 States:

    'An action commenced by a person who subsequently becomes bankrupt is,…

Continue reading Gilbert v Parkyn

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Gilbert v Parkyn [2025] FCA 1182
Case
[2025] FCA 1182
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Gilbert v Parkyn involved a judicial review application by Mr Gilbert against a Registrar's decision to refuse to accept documents for filing in the Federal Court of Australia. The Registrar had refused to accept Mr Gilbert's application under both r 2.26 and r 2.27 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). The central issue for the court was whether the Registrar's decision was subject to judicial review and, if so, whether the decision was lawful and reasonable.

The court considered the nature of the Registrar's decision under r 2.26, which permits the Registrar to refuse documents that are an abuse of the Court's process, frivolous or vexatious. The court found that the Registrar's characterisation of the application as an abuse of process was based on the Proposed Application seeking permission to lodge a statutory demand, which is not a document filed with any court. The court also examined the Registrar's decision under r 2.27, which pertains to documents that do not substantially comply with the Federal Court Rules. The court determined that the statement of claim did not substantially comply with the rules governing the contents of pleadings. The court concluded that the Registrar's decision was administrative in nature and thus subject to judicial review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth).

In dismissing the application for judicial review, the court found that Mr Gilbert's arguments did not address the reasons provided by the Registrar for the decision. Specifically, Mr Gilbert did not engage with the reason why the Registrar considered the Proposed Application to be an abuse of process. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the Registrar's decision stood.

ORDERS:
1. The application is dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application 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

It seems that the statutory demand Mr Gilbert had in mind here would be one served on Sila Australia Pty Ltd in respect of the debt that Mr Gilbert had been pursuing in the District Court.The Registrar's decision The Registrar notified Mr Gilbert of his decision, with reasons, in a letter dated 4 April 2025. The Registrar refused to accept the documents under both r 2.26 and r 2.27 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). Rule 2.26 is: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. The Registrar construed the Proposed Application as seeking the Court's permission to lodge a statutory demand, which is not a document that is filed with any court. The Registrar decided that the application was therefore doomed to fail and so was an abuse of process. Rule 2.27 relevantly provides that a document will not be accepted for filing if it does not substantially comply with the Federal Court Rules: r 2.27(b). For reasons set out below, the Registrar considered that the statement of claim did not substantially comply with r 16.02 of the Federal Court Rules, which governs the contents of pleadings. A decision under r 2.26 is administrative in nature: see Nyoni v Murphy [2018] FCAFC 75; (2018) 261 FCR 164 at [32], [41] (Barker, Banks-Smith and Colvin JJ). While there is no direct authority that a decision under r 2.27(b) is also of that character, there is no reason to treat it any differently: see e.g. Pearson v Ng [2015] FCA 1160 (Perry J); Mbuzi v Curnow (Registrar) [2025] FCA 213 at [44]-[48]. I also note the observations of Colvin J in AMB19 v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCA 439 at [63], albeit in the context of r 2.27(f). It is therefore open to Mr Gilbert to seek judicial review of the decisions: Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Limited [2010] FCAFC 47 at [49]-[50]; Nyoni v Murphy at [41].The application for judicial review Mr Gilbert's application for the Registrar's decision to be set aside does not say how the Court's jurisdiction is invoked. But the form he has used is the form that pertains to applications under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (ADJR Act). I therefore take the application for judicial review to have been made under that Act. Section 5 of the ADJR Act specifies a number of different grounds on which an application can be based. When given an opportunity to specify which one he relies on, Mr Gilbert referred to s 5(1)(a), which permits an application on the ground 'that a breach of the rules of natural justice occurred in connection with the making of the decision'.The refusal to accept the documents under r 2.26 Under the heading 'details of claim' in the application for judicial review, Mr Gilbert asserts that the Proposed Application was not an abuse of process because it does not do various things that can amount to an abuse, for example, it is not a misuse of the legal system to achieve an ulterior purpose. However, this part of the application does not engage with the reason why the Registrar characterised the Proposed Application as an abuse, as set out above. So it does not need to be addressed here.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.