Haque v Tesoriero

[2017] FCA 86

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Haque v Tesoriero [2017] FCA 86

File number:

NSD 1751 of 2016

Judge:

BROMWICH J

Date of judgment:

9 February 2017

Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – review of Registrar’s decision to refuse to accept application for leave to appeal from Haque v Jabella Group Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 962

Legislation:

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 35A(5)

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), r 3.11

Cases cited:

Haque v Jabella Group Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 962

Date of hearing:

9 February 2017

Registry:

New South Wales

Division:

General Division

National Practice Area:

Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights

Category:

Catchwords

Number of paragraphs:

7

Counsel for the Applicant:

The Applicant appeared in person

Counsel for the Respondent:

The Respondent filed a submitting notice save as to costs

ORDERS

NSD 1751 of 2016

BETWEEN:

AKM AZMERUL HAQUE

Applicant

AND:

ANTHONY TESORIERO

Respondent

JUDGE:	BROMWICH J
DATE OF ORDER:	9 FEBRUARY 2017

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The originating application filed on 30 September 2016 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
Revised from transcript

BROMWICH J:

1. This is an originating application for judicial review of a decision of a Deputy District Registrar of this Court (the Registrar) to refuse to accept documents for filing. Although the application does not state the provision under which it is brought, it is evident that it must be under s 35A(5) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (Federal Court Act) together with r 3.11 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).

2. The supporting affidavit annexes copies of three letters from the Registrar dated 8 September 2016, 13 September 2016 and 15 September 2016 which between them make it reasonably clear what the nature of the documents were that were attempted to be filed, why the Registrar refused to accept them for filing and why the Registrar adhered to that decision.  The body of those three letters is as follows:

   Registrar’s letter dated 8 September 2016

   I refer to the following documents which were received by the Registry:

   •         Application for Leave to Appeal (Form 117); and

   •         Affidavit in Support (Form 59)

   (“the Documents”)

   I have considered the Documents to see if the Registry should accept them for filing.

   I note the terms of Rule 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules which states:

   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.

   In accordance with that rule, I refuse to accept the documents.

   My reasons are as follows:

   Your original application to this Court was for…