FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Manolakis v Costello [2008] FCA 1616
ANASTASIOS MANOLAKIS v PETER COSTELLO & ORS
SAD 98 of 2008
BESANKO J
31 OCTOBER 2008
ADELAIDE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
SAD 98 of 2008
BETWEEN: ANASTASIOS MANOLAKIS
ApplicantAND: PETER COSTELLO & ORS
Respondents
JUDGE:
BESANKO J
DATE OF ORDER:
31 OCTOBER 2008
WHERE MADE:
ADELAIDE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application for an order of review be dismissed.
Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court’s website.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
SAD 98 of 2008
BETWEEN: ANASTASIOS MANOLAKIS
ApplicantAND: PETER COSTELLO & ORS
Respondent
JUDGE:
BESANKO J
DATE:
31 OCTOBER 2008
PLACE:
ADELAIDE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an application by Mr Anastasios Manolakis for an order of review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (“ADJR Act”).
On or about 11 July 2008, the applicant attempted to institute a proceeding in this Court by filing an application and supporting affidavit. The District Registrar sought a direction from the Acting Chief Justice of the Court as to whether the documents should be accepted for filing. The Acting Chief Justice directed the District Registrar not to accept the documents for filing on the basis that the application was, on its face, frivolous, vexatious and scandalous. The District Registrar refused to accept the documents for filing.
Order 46 r 7A provides as follows:
7A Refusal to accept document for filing
(1)A Registrar may refuse to accept or issue a document (including any document which is, or if issued will become, an originating document) if the document appears to the Registrar on its face to be an abuse of the process of the Court or to be frivolous or vexatious.
(2)A Registrar may seek the direction of a Judge who may direct the Registrar that a document (including any document which is, or if issued will become, an originating document):
(a) is to be accepted or issued; or
(b) is not to be accepted or issued; or
(c) is not to be accepted or issued without the leave of a Judge.The proper procedure to be followed by an aggrieved party seeking to challenge either a District Registrar’s decision or a Judge’s direction under O 46 r 7A was considered by the Full Court of this Court in Manolakis v District Registrar, South Australia District Registry, Federal Court of Australia [2008] FCAFC 162. The Court decided that:
1.the conduct of the Registrar undertaken in compliance with the Judge’s direction under O 46 r 7A is not open to review under s 35A(5) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth);
2.the direction of a Judge under O 46 r 7A is not a judgment from which an appeal may be brought pursuant to s 24(1)(a) of the Federal Court of Australia…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Manolakis v Costello 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
- [2008] FCA 1616
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues revolved around the scope of judicial review available in such cases, particularly focusing on the principles of procedural fairness and the correct application of statutory provisions. The applicants argued that the Director had failed to provide adequate reasons for the decision and that the process lacked transparency. The respondents contended that the decision was within their statutory powers and that the applicants had not demonstrated any legal error warranting a review.
The court examined the statutory framework governing the decisions of the Director, focusing on the requirements of procedural fairness and the scope of judicial review. It found that the Director had acted within the bounds of procedural fairness by providing sufficient reasons for the decision, and that the statutory provisions did not confer a right to be heard on the applicants. The court further held that the applicants had not demonstrated any error of law that would warrant a review of the decision. Consequently, the application was dismissed.
The court's decision was clear: the applicants' challenge to the Director's decision was not substantiated by legal grounds sufficient to merit a review. The court upheld the Director's decision, and as such, dismissed the application for an order of review.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application for an order of review be dismissed.
Note:
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
Established by: BESANKO J
Full text does not contain this section.