Mbuzi v Curnow (Registrar)

Link copied
Case Copied 48 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Mbuzi v Curnow (Registrar) [2025] FCA 213   

File number: QUD 714 of 2024
Judgment of: WHEATLEY J
Date of judgment: 18 March 2025
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — Application for judicial review of a Registrar’s decision under r 2.26 and r 2.27(b) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) to refuse to accept documents for filing — Where the Registrar decided that the Applicant’s original application and accompanying documents were an abuse of process, frivolous, and vexatious — Whether the Registrar’s decision was affected by jurisdictional error — Whether there was reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the Registrar — Whether the Registrar’s decision was legally unreasonable — Application dismissed.
Legislation:

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

Australian Consumer Law (Cth) s 20

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 548

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 21

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39B

Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) Pt 111A

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2)(General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 17.05, r 30.10

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 1.32, r 1.34, r 2.26, r 2.27, r 8.01, r 8.04, r 8.05

Federal Court (Corporations) Rules 2000 (Cth)

Cases cited:

Bizuneh v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2003) 128 FCR 353; [2003] FCAFC 42

Charisteas v Charisteas (2021) 273 CLR 289; [2021] HCA 29

Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163; [1995] HCA 58

Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337; [2000] HCA 63

Ferdinands v Registrar Cridland [2021] FCA 592

Johnson v Johnson (2000) 201 CLR 488; [2000] HCA 48

Jones v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2002) 76 ALD 424; [2002] FCA 1054

Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission (NSW) (2010) 239 CLR 531; [2010] HCA 1

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Singh (2014) 231 FCR 437; [2014] FCAFC 1

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Stretton (2016) 237 FCR 1; [2016] FCAFC 11

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship vLi (2013) 249 CLR 332; [2013] HCA 18

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng (2001) 205 CLR 507; [2001] HCA 17

National Australia Bank Limited v Norman [2009] FCAFC 13

Nyoni v Murphy (2018) 261 FCR 164; [2018] FCAFC 75

Rahman v Hedge [2012] FCA 68

Re JRL; Ex parte CJL (1986) 161 CLR 342; [1986] HCA 39

Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Limited (2010) 268 ALR 222; [2010] FCAFC 47

Singh v Minister for Home Affairs (2019) 267 FCR 200; [2019] FCAFC 3

SZDCJ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2004) 212 ALR 581; [2004] FCA 1500
Division: General Division
Registry: Queensland
National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Number of paragraphs: 117
Date of hearing: 11 March 2025  
Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant appeared in person
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Mbuzi v Curnow (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
[2025] FCA 213
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Applicant, Mbuzi, brought a judicial review application against the Registrar, Curnow, challenging the Registrar’s decision to refuse to accept certain documents for filing. The Registrar had determined that the Applicant’s original application and accompanying documents were an abuse of process, frivolous, and vexatious, and thus refused to accept them for filing under rules 2.26 and 2.27(b) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). The Applicant sought to challenge the decision on the grounds of jurisdictional error, apprehended bias, breach of procedural fairness, and unreasonableness.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the Registrar’s decision was affected by jurisdictional error, whether there was reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the Registrar, and whether the Registrar’s decision was legally unreasonable. The Applicant argued that the Registrar erred in concluding that the documents were an abuse of process, frivolous, and vexatious, and that there was a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the Registrar. The Registrar maintained that the decision was correct and that there was no apprehension of bias.

The court found that the Registrar’s decision was not affected by jurisdictional error, and that there was no reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the Registrar. The court also found that the Registrar’s decision was not legally unreasonable, as the Registrar had carefully considered the documents and applied the relevant rules correctly. The Applicant’s arguments were rejected, and the judicial review application was dismissed.

The court made an order dismissing the originating application for judicial review filed on 21 November 2024. The decision of the Registrar to refuse to accept the Applicant’s documents for filing was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The originating application for judicial review filed on 21 November 2024 is 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

Given the recent major weather event of Tropical Cyclone Alfred and its aftermath, the hearing was adjourned until 11 March 2025, wherein the Applicant appeared at the hearing of the judicial review application and made further submissions.THE REGISTRAR’S DECISION The Applicant submitted the Original Documents to the Queensland District Registry on 4 November 2024, which were referred to the Registrar in her capacity as National Duty Registrar to review and determine whether they should be accepted for filing. The Registrar records that she read and considered the Original Documents. The Registrar determined that the Original Documents could not be accepted for filing and in a letter dated 8 November 2024, the Registrar set out the reasons for refusing to accept the Original Documents for filing. The Registrar referred to and applied r 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (FCR). That rule provides that a registrar may refuse to accept a document, if satisfied that the document is an abuse of process or is frivolous or vexatious, on the face of the document or by reference to any documents already filed or submitted for filing with the document. The Registrar referred to the decision of White J in Ferdinands v Registrar Cridland [2021] FCA 592 at [27]-[30], and expressly summarised the meaning of the “frivolous”, “vexatious” and “abuse of process”. Having regard to those matters, the Registrar was satisfied that the OA sought to be filed by the Applicant was an abuse of process, frivolous and vexatious. As such, the Registrar refused to accept the Original Documents for filing pursuant to r 2.26 of the FCR. Although it was not entirely clear on the face of the OA, the Registrar was of the view that the OA appeared to seek damages. The Registrar made express reference to paragraphs 6 and 7, seeking payments of $100 per day until a future point in time, as well as paragraph 8, seeking payment of $75,000 for breach of Pt 111A of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). The Registrar observed that r 8.05 requires an originating application seeking relief that includes damages to be accompanied by a statement of claim. The Registrar observed that while the nature of the relief sought in the OA was not specified, it was the Registrar’s view that the relief sought by the Applicant was likely to engage r 8.05 and therefore, the OA should have been accompanied by a statement of claim. Accordingly, the Registrar refused to accept the documents for filing, pursuant to r 2.26 and r 2.27(b) of the FCR. Rule 2.27(b) provides that a document will not be accepted for filing if it does not substantially comply with the FCR. It is apparent that the Registrar was of the view that non-compliance with r 8.05 was substantial non-compliance. It is this decision which the Applicant seeks to judicially review.JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION The Applicant’s judicial review application is based on and seeks the following:Details of claim1.It is otherwise contrary to law, And also 2.It is attended with apprehended bias.Grounds of application1Jurisdictional error.2Apprehended bias.3Breach of procedural fairness.4Unreasonableness5Error of lawOrders sought1An order for the decision to be quashed or set aside.2An order for the documents to be accepted for filing as of the date they were lodged.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.