FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Jajoo v Micheletto [2021] FCA 1238
File number(s): NSD 680 of 2021 Judgment of: STEWART J Date of judgment: 13 October 2021 Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – application for judicial review of orders of a judge of the Federal Circuit Court – where orders contained a notation referring the applicant solicitor to the Law Society of New South Wales – where primary judge impugned the professional conduct of the applicant – where applicant was neither a party to the proceeding nor the solicitor on record for one of the parties – where applicant was not called to give evidence and was not afforded an opportunity to be heard – denial of procedural fairness – declaration made as to invalidity of the subject notation Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 20A(2)(c), 37AF(1), 37AG(1)(a)
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39B
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) r 10.01(3)(s)
Cases cited: Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission [1992] HCA 10; 175 CLR 564
Annetts v McCann [1990] HCA 57; 170 CLR 596
Ashby v Slipper [2014] FCAFC 15; 219 FCR 322
Bale v Mills [2011] NSWCA 226; 81 NSWLR 498
Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; Ex parte Lam [2003] HCA 6; 214 CLR 1
Moorgate Tobacco Co Ltd v Phillip Morris Ltd [1980] HCA 32; 145 CLR 457
Rafidi v Commonwealth Bank of Australia Ltd [2017] NSWCA 96
Riva NSW Pty Ltd v Fraser & Clancy t/as Fraser Clancy Lawyers [2020] NSWCA 210
Division: General Division Registry: New South Wales National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Number of paragraphs: 26 Date of last submissions: 1 October 2021 Date of hearing: Determined on the papers Counsel for the Applicant: S Lloyd SC and R Davies Solicitor for the Applicant: David Legal Counsel for the First Respondent: The first respondent filed a submitting notice Counsel for the Second Respondent: The second respondent filed a submitting notice Counsel for the Third Respondent: The third respondent did not appear Counsel for the Fourth Respondent: The fourth respondent filed a submitting notice ORDERS
NSD 680 of 2021 BETWEEN: SABRINA JAJOO
Applicant
AND: FABIAN KANE MICHELETTO & MICHAEL CARRAFA (AS JOINT AND SEVERAL TRUSTEES OF THE PROPERTY OF AID ESHI, A BANKRUPT)
First Respondent
STEPHANIE BHNAN
Second Respondent
AID ESHI
Third Respondent
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Fourth Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
STEWART J
DATE OF ORDER:
13 OCTOBER 2021
THE COURT DECLARES THAT:
1.The notation in the orders of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia on 4 June 2021 in file number MLG 2043 of 2020 is invalid because it was made without affording the applicant procedural fairness.
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
2.The orders made and reasons for judgment published today be published only to the parties to the proceeding until their further publication would not be in contravention of non-publication orders made by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia on 21 July 2021 in file number MLG 2043…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Jajoo v Micheletto and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2021] FCA 1238
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered whether the orders breached the principle of procedural fairness by failing to afford Mr Jajoo a fair opportunity to respond to the imputations against his professional conduct. It was determined that the notation in the orders, which referred to Mr Jajoo's professional conduct without providing him an opportunity to be heard, did indeed contravene the rules of natural justice. This was particularly pertinent because the orders had the potential to adversely affect Mr Jajoo's professional reputation without him having any means to defend himself. Consequently, the court found that the notation was invalid due to the denial of procedural fairness.
The court made a declaration that the notation in the Federal Circuit Court's orders was invalid. Additionally, the orders made and reasons for judgment were to be published only to the parties and to such other people as may be necessary for the purposes of further proceedings. Mr Jajoo was directed to apply to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia to vary the original orders to allow for unrestricted publication of the current orders and reasons for judgment. This application was to be made forthwith, and the Associate to Stewart J was to be notified once the variation had been achieved.
Orders
Orders of the court
2. The orders made and reasons for judgment published today be published only to the parties to the proceeding until their further publication would not be in contravention of non-publication orders made by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia on 21 July 2021 in file number MLG 2043 of 2020, and to such other people as may be necessary for the purposes of Order 3 below.
3. The applicant forthwith apply to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia for variation of the orders of the Federal Circuit Court referred to in Order 2 so as to not restrict the publication of the orders made and reasons for judgment published today, and notify the Associate to Stewart J when such variation has been made.
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.