FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
McGinn v High Court of Australia (No 2) [2025] FCA 795
File number(s): NSD 544 of 2025 Judgment of: JACKMAN J Date of judgment: 3 July 2025 Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – application for judicial review pursuant to the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (AD(JR) Act) and the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) seeking reasons pursuant to s 13 of the AD(JR) Act for Registrar’s decision to seek direction under r 6.07.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth) – where Registrar’s decision not a decision to which s 13 applies – application must be dismissed
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for summary judgment pursuant to r 26.01(1)(e) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) on basis that respondent filed submitting notice – application dismissed
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – consideration of whether grounds might exist for making a vexatious proceedings order against applicant pursuant to s 37AO of Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – question deferred to future hearingLegislation: Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)
High Court Rules 2004 (Cth)
Division: General Division Registry: New South Wales National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Number of paragraphs: 10 Date of hearing: 3 July 2025 Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant was a litigant-in-person ORDERS
NSD 544 of 2025 BETWEEN: SOPHIA MCGINN
Applicant
AND: HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JACKMAN J
DATE OF ORDER:
3 JULY 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.On the completion of the matters set out in Orders 2 and 3 below, the originating process in NSD544/2025 will be dismissed.
2.Ms McGinn is to file any affidavits and written submissions in relation to why a vexatious proceedings order should not be made against her by 8 August 2025.
3.The matter stand over to 14 August 2025 at 10.15am for hearing as to whether a vexatious proceedings order should be made against Ms McGinn.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Delivered ex tempore, revised from transcriptJACKMAN J:
This is an application for judicial review pursuant to the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (AD(JR) Act) and the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) (Judiciary Act) seeking reasons pursuant to section 13 of the AD(JR) Act of a decision by Registrar Griffin of the High Court of Australia on 11 December 2024 to seek a direction from a Justice under r 6.07.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth).
Rule 6.07.1 provides as follows:
If a writ, application, summons, affidavit or other document (the document) appears to a Registrar on its face to be an abuse of the process of the Court, to be frivolous or vexatious or to fall outside the jurisdiction of the Court, the Registrar may seek the direction of a Justice.
Registrar Griffin declined to provide reasons by email on 12 December 2024.
Section 13(1) of the AD(JR) Act provides for reasons for decisions to be obtained where a person makes “a decision to which this section applies”.
That expression is defined in s 13(11) as a decision to which the AD(JR) Act applies (being certain decisions of an “administrative character” as defined in s 3(1)), but does not include, relevantly, a decision included in any of the classes of decisions set out in Schedule 2. One of the classes of decisions set out in Schedule 2 is “decisions in connection with the institution or conduct of proceedings in a civil court”: see para (f).
The decision of Registrar Griffin was in connection with the institution or conduct of proceedings in a civil court and was therefore not a decision to which s 13 applies. Accordingly, the originating application must be dismissed.
Ms McGinn also seeks summary judgment pursuant to r 26.01(1)(e) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), apparently on the ground that the respondent has filed a submitting notice under r 12.01 as a party which does not want to contest the relief sought in the originating application. For the reasons given earlier today in relation to NSD1825/2024 and NSD1867/2024, that application is misconceived.
Before making orders disposing of these proceedings, I note that I have today heard and decided nine sets of proceedings brought by Ms McGinn in the Federal Court, and a number of interlocutory applications that I disqualify myself on grounds of actual bias. I have also read three interlocutory judgments of Yates J in NSD1070/2024. The circumstances appear to me to raise a question whether the grounds might exist for the Court possibly to be satisfied that a vexatious proceedings order might be made against Ms McGinn under s 37AO of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), with the effect of prohibiting Ms McGinn from instituting proceedings in the Court without first obtaining the leave of the Court.
I am not aware of any other proceedings in the Court which Ms McGinn has already instituted, but if there are, then there is also a question whether an order might be made staying or dismissing those proceedings. I have not made any decision as to whether such orders are appropriate and I am fully open to persuasion by Ms McGinn not to make a vexatious proceedings order.
Section 37AO(3) provides, among other things, that the Court may make a vexatious proceedings order on its own initiative.
However, section 37AO(4) provides that the Court must not make a vexatious proceedings order in relation to a person without hearing the person or giving the person an opportunity to be heard. I have asked Ms McGinn if she wishes to have further time to prepare for an opportunity to be heard on the matter or whether she wishes to be heard today, and Ms McGinn accepted the additional time. I have therefore made orders for the filing of the applicant’s affidavits and written submissions on the matter, which will be listed for hearing at 10.15 am on 14 August 2025.
I certify that the preceding ten (10) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Jackman. Associate:
Dated: 11 July 2025
- AGLC
- McGinn v High Court of Australia (No 2) [2025] FCA 795
- Case
- [2025] FCA 795
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether the Registrar’s decision was a decision to which the statutory requirement for reasons applied and whether summary judgment was appropriate under the Federal Court Rules. Furthermore, the court needed to determine if there were sufficient grounds to make a vexatious proceedings order against Ms McGinn. The court found that the Registrar’s decision was not one to which the requirement for reasons applied, thus dismissing the application for judicial review. The court also dismissed the application for summary judgment and deferred the decision on whether a vexatious proceedings order should be made until a future hearing.
In its judgment, the court concluded that the Registrar’s decision was not subject to the statutory requirement for reasons, and therefore the application for judicial review was dismissed. The court further ruled that the application for summary judgment was inappropriate as the respondent had not filed a submitting notice. The court noted that Ms McGinn had an opportunity to present her case as to why a vexatious proceedings order should not be made against her at a future hearing. The court ordered that the originating process would be dismissed upon completion of certain procedural steps, including the filing of affidavits and written submissions by Ms McGinn and a hearing on the vexatious proceedings order.
The final orders of the court mandated the dismissal of the originating process upon certain conditions being met. Ms McGinn was required to file affidavits and written submissions by a specified date to argue against a vexatious proceedings order. The matter was set to be heard on a future date to decide whether a vexatious proceedings order should be made against Ms McGinn. These orders were in line with the procedural rules governing such matters in the Federal Court.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. On the completion of the matters set out in Orders 2 and 3 below, the originating process in NSD544/2025 will be dismissed.
2. Ms McGinn is to file any affidavits and written submissions in relation to why a vexatious proceedings order should not be made against her by 8 August 2025.
3. The matter stand over to 14 August 2025 at 10.15am for hearing as to whether a vexatious proceedings order should be made against Ms McGinn.
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.