Howard v Deputy Registrar of Federal Court of Australia

[2019] FCA 501

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Howard v Deputy Registrar of Federal Court of Australia [2019] FCA 501

File number(s):

NSD 363 of 2019

Judge(s):

RARES J

Date of judgment:

5 April 2019

Legislation:

Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995 (NSW)

Federal Court Rules 2011 r 2.26

Cases cited:

Walton v Gardner (1993) 177 CLR 378

Date of hearing:

5 April 2019

Registry:

New South Wales

Division:

General Division

National Practice Area:

Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights

Category:

No Catchwords

Number of paragraphs:

5

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 363 of 2019

BETWEEN:

MORGAN HOWARD

Applicant

AND:

SUSAN O'CONNOR - DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA (SYDNEY)

Respondent

JUDGE:	RARES J
DATE OF ORDER:	5 APRIL 2019

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

Note:   Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

RARES J:

1. The applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of a deputy registrar, under r 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011, to reject for filing her originating application and affidavit in support as being on their face or by reference to those documents an abuse of the process of the Court.

2. The proposed originating application seeks a variety of orders in respect of a decision or decisions of certain officials of the State of New South Wales, to include, as part of the applicant’s name, the abbreviation “Ms”, as opposed to using it as a title.  The applicant claims that provisions in the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995 (NSW) allowed the respondents, being the State, various of its institutions (including the Supreme Court of New South Wales) and various officials to engage in this use of “Ms” and that in doing so they acted contrary to her human rights. She also claims that those actions denied her basic human rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  She also seeks, among other relief, exemplary damages and compensation for various affronts that she claims to have suffered over the years from the State and those institutions and officials. 

3. Having reviewed the proposed originating application and affidavit in support, there is no basis on which I can discern that the deputy registrar erred or that the applicant would be entitled to any relief in this Court on any basis on which she claims.

4. In those circumstances, the institution and prosecution of the proceeding that the applicant seeks to bring would be an abuse of process. That is because it can be clearly seen to be foredoomed to fail and it would be unjustifiably oppressive or vexatious of the proposed respondents: Walton v Gardner (1993) 177 CLR 378 at 393 per Mason CJ, Deane and Dawson JJ.

5. For these reasons, the originating application for review of the deputy registrar’s decision must be dismissed.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Rares.

Associate:

Dated:       10 April 2019