Hochmuth - [2002] FCA 790

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Hochmuth [2002] FCA 790
DAMIAN HOCHMUTH
JACOBSON J
18 JUNE 2002
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

IN THE MATTER OF

DAMIAN HOCHMUTH
APPLICANT

JUDGE:

JACOBSON J

DATE OF ORDER:

18 JUNE 2002

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT DIRECTS THAT:

The Registrar to refuse to accept or issue the application and statement of claim.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

IN THE MATTER OF:

DAMIAN HOCHMUTH
APPLICANT

JUDGE:

JACOBSON J

DATE:

18 JUNE 2002

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

On 12 June 2002 Mr Damian Hochmuth sought to file an application and statement of claim in the court. The documents were faxed to the court on that date.
On 14 June 2002 Mr Tesoriero on behalf of the District Registrar wrote to Mr Hochmuth stating that in his view the documents appeared on their face to be frivolous or vexatious. The matter was referred to the duty judge pursuant to Order 46 rule 7A of the Federal Court Rules for directions. A copy of the rule was sent to Mr Hochmuth with the letter of 14 June.
The matter was referred to me for directions this afternoon and the matter came on for hearing before me shortly after 2.30 pm. Mr Hochmuth sought a direction under order 46 rule 7A(a) for the court to accept or issue the application and statement of claim.
Mr Hochmuth addressed me this afternoon in support of his application for a direction under rule 7A(a). I asked him to state in as concise a form as possible how it is that he says that the application and statement of claim amount to a cause of action against either of the two proposed respondents, namely the New South Wales Police Service and the Australian Federal Police. Most of what Mr Hochmuth said to me this afternoon is already set out in the document, which he wishes to file in court. I think the most convenient course would be for me to set out large slabs of the document, which Mr Hochmuth wishes to file in the Registry.
The details of the claim contained in the application refer to the annexed document, which is described as the statement of claim. Mr Hochmuth says that on the grounds stated in an accompanying affidavit or statement of claim he seeks the orders contained in the proposed statement of claim.
Paragraph 1 of the statement of claim states that the New South Wales Police Service failed to comply with duties conferred upon it by sections 7(b), 7(c) and 6(1) of the Police Service Act 1990. The claim against the Australian Federal Police is said to be failure to fulfil duties conferred on it by section 8(1)(b) of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979.
The application then proceeds to state that the applicant claims the relief specified in the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Hochmuth

Details

AGLC: Hochmuth [2002] FCA 790
Case: [2002] FCA 790
Decision Date: 18 JUNE 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Damian Hochmuth sought to file an application and statement of claim, which the District Registrar deemed to be frivolous or vexatious. The matter was referred to Jacobson J for directions under Order 46 rule 7A of the Federal Court Rules. The central issue was whether the proposed application and statement of claim amounted to a cause of action against either the New South Wales Police Service or the Australian Federal Police, and whether they were frivolous or vexatious, thus warranting refusal under Order 46 rule 7A.

The court found that the proposed application and statement of claim did not contain a summary of material facts that constituted a claim against the New South Wales Police Service or the Australian Federal Police. The claims seemed to be a collection of complaints without any basis in law that could possibly succeed. Jacobson J concluded that even if the statement of claim were permitted to be filed, it would likely be struck out as it did not disclose a cause of action that could possibly succeed. The court held that the proposed application and statement of claim would be foredoomed to fail and would amount to an abuse of process or be frivolous or vexatious within the meaning of Order 46 rule 7A.

Accordingly, the court directed the Registrar to refuse to accept or issue the application and statement of claim. The decision underscored the importance of ensuring that legal proceedings have a reasonable prospect of success and are not an abuse of the court's process.

Orders