LFDB v Deputy District Registrar

Link copied
Case Copied 10 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

LFDB v Deputy District Registrar [2023] FCA 1516

File number: NSD 677 of 2023
Judgment of: PERRAM J
Date of judgment: 14 December 2023
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for extension of time to seek judicial review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) – where review sought of decision of Deputy District Registrar to register judgments under the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) – whether decision ‘of an administrative character’ – whether extension of time would have any utility
Legislation:

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) ss 3(1), 5(1)

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 596A

Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth)

International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth)

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 35A(1)

Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) ss 66, 67, 68, 72, 74

Federal Court of Australia Rules 2011 (Cth) sch 2
Cases cited:

Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1995) 183 CLR 245

Herd v Haines [2023] FCA 325

LFDB v SM (No 3) [2017] FCA 80

LFDB v SM [2017] FCAFC 178

Official Trustee in Bankruptcy v Nedlands Pty Ltd (in liq) [2000] FCA 599; 99 FCR 554

Palmer v Ayres [2017] HCA 5; 259 CLR 478

Plaintiff S157/2022 v Commonwealth [2003] HCA 2; 211 CLR 476

R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers’ Society of Australia (1956) 94 CLR 254

R v Spicer; Ex parte Australian Builders’ Labourers’ Federation (1957) 100 CLR 277

South Australia v Totani [2010] HCA 39; 242 CLR 1

TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd v Judges of the Federal Court of Australia [2013] HCA 5; 251 CLR 533
Division: General Division
Registry: New South Wales
National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Number of paragraphs: 18
Date of hearing: 27 November 2023
Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent: The Respondent did not appear

ORDERS

NSD 677 of 2023
BETWEEN:

LFDB

Applicant
AND:

DEPUTY DISTRICT REGISTRAR

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

PERRAM J

DATE OF ORDER:

14 DECEMBER 2023

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The Applicant’s application for an extension of time be dismissed.

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


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

PERRAM J:

  1. This application is the latest outbreak of litigation relating to the Applicant and his ex-partner which has spanned the courts of Australia and New Zealand for nearly 15 years.

  2. By this application dated 6 July 2023, the Applicant seeks an extension of time in which to bring an application under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (‘ADJR Act’) for review of a decision made by a Deputy District Registrar of this Court to issue certificates of registration in respect of two judgments of the High Court of New Zealand pursuant to the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) (‘TTP Act’) on 16 December 2015.

  3. The Applicant has previously sought to set aside the registration of the two judgments under s 72…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read LFDB v Deputy District Registrar 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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2023] FCA 1516
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In LFDB v Deputy District Registrar, the applicant sought an extension of time to apply for judicial review of a decision by the Deputy District Registrar to register judgments under the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010. The Federal Court was required to determine whether the decision of the Deputy District Registrar was of an administrative character and whether an extension of time would have any utility.

The court considered that the decision of the Deputy District Registrar was not of an administrative character but rather a judicial decision. The court held that the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 provided for the registration of foreign judgments and that the Deputy District Registrar's decision was a determination of a legal issue, not an administrative action. Therefore, the court held that the application for judicial review was not available to the applicant. Furthermore, the court held that an extension of time would not have any utility as the applicant had failed to demonstrate any reason for the delay in seeking judicial review.

The court dismissed the applicant's application for an extension of time to seek judicial review. The court held that the decision of the Deputy District Registrar was not of an administrative character and that an extension of time would not have any utility. The court noted that the applicant had failed to demonstrate any reason for the delay in seeking judicial review.

The final order of the court was that the applicant's application for an extension of time be dismissed. The court held that the decision of the Deputy District Registrar was not of an administrative character and that an extension of time would not have any utility. The court noted that the applicant had failed to demonstrate any reason for the delay in seeking judicial review.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Applicant’s application for an extension of time be dismissed.

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.