Ninan v Hannigan

Case [2019] FCA 606

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Ninan v Hannigan [2019] FCA 606

File numbers: WAD 6 of 2014
WAD 68 of 2014
WAD 69 of 2014
Judge: COLVIN J
Date of judgment: 2 May 2019
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - applications for default judgment - where fraud and conspiracy alleged - where failure to comply with previous orders giving applicant opportunity to put evidence before the Court - where substantive applications plainly an abuse of process - where amount of damages sought extravagant - applications for default judgment dismissed - applications dismissed
Legislation:

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

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 2.26, 3.05
Cases cited:

Ninan v Hannigan [2014] FCA 258

Ninan v St George Bank Ltd [2014] FCA 334

Nyoni v Shire of Kellerberrin [2019] FCA 530
Date of hearing: 29 April 2019
Registry: Western Australia
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 25
In WAD 6 of 2014:
Counsel for the First Applicant: The First Applicant appeared in Person (via telephone)
Counsel for the Second Applicant: The Second Applicant did not appear
Counsel for the Respondents: The Respondents did not appear
In WAD 68 of 2014:
Counsel for the First Applicant: The First Applicant appeared in Person (via telephone)
Counsel for the Second Applicant: The Second Applicant did not appear
Counsel for the Respondent: The Respondent did not appear
In WAD 69 of 2014:
Counsel for the First Applicant: The First Applicant appeared in Person (via telephone)
Counsel for the Second Applicant: The Second Applicant did not appear
Counsel for the Respondent: The Respondent did not appear

ORDERS

WAD 6 of 2014
BETWEEN:

GEORGE NINAN

First Applicant

MOLLY GEORGE

Second Applicant
AND:

PATRICIA FRANCES HANNIGAN

First Respondent

JUSTICE GRIFFITHS

Second Respondent

JUSTICE EDMONDS (and others named in the Schedule)

Third Respondent
WAD 68 of 2014
BETWEEN:

GEORGE NINAN

First Applicant

MOLLY GEORGE

Second Applicant
AND:

REGISTRAR EATON

Respondent
WAD 69 of 2014
BETWEEN:

GEORGE NINAN

First Applicant

MOLLY GEORGE

Second Applicant
AND:

REGISTRAR EATON

Respondent

JUDGE:

COLVIN J

DATE OF ORDER:

2 MAY 2019

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applications for default judgment be dismissed.

2.The applications be dismissed.

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


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

COLVIN J:

  1. Mr Ninan seeks default judgment in three proceedings that he has commenced against registrars and judges of this Court.  He alleges a conspiracy and fraud involving the Chief Justice, the judges of the Court and its registrars.  The proceedings also name Ms Molly George as an applicant.  The proceedings have been signed by Mr Ninan purportedly '[a]s representative of me & my wife, Molly George'.  Immediately thereunder is a signature presented as the signature of Ms George.  The applications state that it is intended to serve them 'by email only'.

  2. Ms George did not seek to appear.  In those circumstances, I take the signature of Ms George to provide authority for Mr…

Continue reading Ninan v Hannigan

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Ninan v Hannigan [2019] FCA 606
Case
[2019] FCA 606
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in this case were Ninan, the applicant, and Hannigan, the respondent. The dispute involved allegations of fraud and conspiracy, with Ninan seeking default judgment against Hannigan. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The applicant sought a default judgment on the basis of the respondent's failure to comply with previous orders, which had given Ninan the opportunity to present evidence before the court. The respondent argued that the substantive applications were an abuse of process and that the amount of damages sought by the applicant was extravagant.

The legal issues before the court included whether the applications for default judgment were appropriate given the respondent's non-compliance with previous orders and whether the substantive applications were an abuse of process. The court also considered whether the amount of damages sought by the applicant was reasonable. The court found that the applications for default judgment were not appropriate because the substantive applications were plainly an abuse of process. Furthermore, the amount of damages sought by the applicant was considered extravagant.

Based on the above findings, the court dismissed both the applications for default judgment and the substantive applications. The court found that the respondent's non-compliance with previous orders did not justify the granting of a default judgment, especially given the abuse of process and the extravagant amount of damages sought. The court's decision was in line with the principles of fairness and justice, and it ensured that the legal process was not misused for improper purposes.

The final orders of the court were that the applications for default judgment be dismissed and that the applications themselves be dismissed. The entry of these orders was dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applications for default judgment be dismissed.

2. The applications 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.