Haynes v Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages

[2011] NSWADT 231

Administrative Decisions Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Haynes v Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages [2011] NSWADT 231
Hearing dates:	20 September 2011
Decision date:	04 October 2011
Jurisdiction:	General Division
Before:	S Frost, Judicial Member
Decision:	Decision under review affirmed.
Catchwords:	Change of name - prohibited name - discretion to refuse to register change of name
Legislation Cited:	Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995
Cases Cited:	Juchau v Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages [2009] NSWADT 260
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Richard Haynes (Applicant) Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Respondent)
Representation:	R Haynes (Applicant in person) Crown Solicitors Office (Respondent)
File Number(s):	113168

reasons for decision

1. GENERAL DIVISION (S FROST (JUDICIAL MEMBER)): The Applicant applied under s 27 of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1955 (the Act) to change his name from Richard Haynes to "Lord Ritchard John Haynes".

1. A delegate of the Registrar declined to register the change of name. The reason given was that the proposed name included or resembled an "official title or rank" and was therefore a "prohibited name" within the meaning of that expression in s 4(1) of the Act.

1. The Applicant has applied to the Tribunal for review of that decision.

The Legislation

1. Section 27 of the Act provides that a person may apply to the Registrar for registration of a change of the person's name.

1. The Registrar may refuse to register a change of name if, as a result of the change, the name would become a prohibited name: section 30(3).

1. Section 4(1) relevantly defines the expression "prohibited name" to mean a name that:

...

(c) includes or resembles an official title or rank; or (d) is contrary to the public interest for some other reason.

The Applicant's case

1. When confronted with the Registrar's decision to refuse to register the proposed change of name, the Applicant noted in a letter to the Registrar's office:

I have no intention to use the name change to obtain money or to get a better seat on an air flight or restaurant but I will use it in my company as an advertisement or marketing strategy to be able to increase my work force and scope of work there for (sic) I can employ more staff.

1. This proposition was repeated in his application to the Tribunal for review of the refusal decision where he specified as the reasons for seeking review:

I need the name change for my new business (The Royal Treatment). The name Lord would set it apart from any others.

1. The Applicant describes the proposed business, with the name The Royal Treatment, as:

a full silver service catering business featuring all the trimmings that you would get at a Royal function including catering, wine tasting, high tea's (sic) the full silver service from setup to clean up.

1. The Applicant told me that, while he is known by some people in his local area as "Lord Ritchard" (he indicated, for example, that his membership of the local RSL club and leagues club is in the name "Lord Ritchard Haynes") and that for the last several months he has referred to himself, on the phone and when sending email messages, as "Lord Ritchard", he has encountered difficulties when attempting to have official documents such as his driver's licence issued in the name "Lord Ritchard". He needs official endorsement of this requested name change so he can be known more broadly as "Lord Ritchard".

The Respondent's case

1. The Respondent says that the proposed name would be a prohibited name because it both includes and resembles an official title or rank.

1. The Respondent notes that the Macquarie Dictionary (4 th edition, 2005) defines "title" as, relevantly, "a descriptive or distinctive appellation, especially one belonging to a person by right of rank, office, attainment, etc". The word "official", which the Respondent submits qualifies both "title" and "rank" in s 4(1), can mean "formal or ceremonious"; "of or relating to an office or position of duty, trust or authority"; or "authorised or issued authoritatively".

1. The Respondent submits that the word "Lord" is an official title, representing the courtesy title of younger sons of a duke or marquess, or a less formal title for marquess, earl, viscount or baron.

1. The Respondent draws a distinction between a "name" and an "official title" and submits that the object of Part 5 of the Act, headed "Change of Name", is:

to allow persons to change how they are identified. Its object is not to record their rank, status or authority (regardless of whether they are entitled to that rank, status or authority). Just as the Act is not designed to record titles such as "Mr" or "Mrs", so too with official titles such as "Lord".

1. The Respondent also submits that registration of the name "Lord Ritchard John Haynes" is liable to mislead others into thinking the Applicant is entitled to be called "Lord".

1. Finally the Respondent submits that it is not in the public interest that someone should be able to change their name by registration purely for marketing purposes.

Consideration

1. There is no doubt that the word "Lord" is an official title. To register the Applicant's proposed name change would result in registration of a "prohibited name" because the word "Lord" by itself resembles - in fact, is - an official title, and the composite "Lord Ritchard John Haynes" includes an official title. The discretion to refuse to register the proposed change of name is therefore enlivened.

1. The question then is whether the discretion to refuse to register should be exercised. In my opinion it should.

1. Registration of the name "Lord Ritchard John Haynes" is, as the Respondent submits, liable to mislead others into thinking the Applicant is entitled to be called "Lord". In Juchau v Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages [2009] NSWADT 260, Judicial Member Montgomery held at [24] that the application for the word "Prince" to be added to a name should not be permitted because it would be likely to create confusion as to whether or not the name was a title. Similar considerations apply here, where the Applicant seeks to have the word "Lord" added to his name.

1. The Applicant does not wish to be known, and is not currently known by some of the people he mixes with, as simply "Lord", but as "Lord Ritchard". In that context "Lord" does not appear to be a name. The composite "Lord Ritchard John Haynes" should not be allowed to be registered as a namebecause it would amount to an official sanction of a word as a name when in truth it is not.

1. The Applicant freely admits that he seeks to obtain an advantage by using his proposed name for business marketing purposes. In his letter requesting an internal review of the decision to refuse registration of the proposed name, he said:

I think someone with the name Lord Ritchard Haynes would not only be an advantage but an asset to the company it would reflect the intentions of supplying a real royal service and royal treatment to the public ...

1. That suggests, and I find, that the Applicant is actually seeking to register and use the word "Lord" as an official title, rather than as a name.

1. In summary:

• "Lord Ritchard John Haynes" includes an official title and is therefore a "prohibited name";
• the word "Lord" is not a name but a title;
• to register "Lord Ritchard John Haynes" as the Applicant's name would be to sanction the word "Lord" as a name when it is not;
• to register "Lord Ritchard John Haynes" as the Applicant's name is liable to mislead others into thinking the Applicant is entitled to be called "Lord";
• it is inappropriate to register "Lord Ritchard John Haynes" as the Applicant's name since he is seeking to use the word "Lord" as an official title, rather than as a name;
• it is inappropriate, in any event, to register "Lord Ritchard John Haynes" as the Applicant's name when the dominant or exclusive purpose of the Applicant is to use the title "Lord" for business marketing purposes.

1. The decision under review is affirmed.

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal.

Registrar

**********

Decision last updated: 04 October 2011