Nyoni v Morgan

The case of Nyoni v Morgan involves an originating application for judicial review brought by Mr Nyoni against Registrar Morgan of the New South Wales District Registry of the Federal Court of Australia. The application concerns the refusal by Registrar Morgan to accept for filing Mr Nyoni's originating application which sought review of decisions made by the State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia, and decisions of Justice White and Justice McKerracher of the Federal Court of Australia. The application was subsequently transferred to the Western Australian District Registry of the Federal Court of Australia. The court was required to determine several legal issues, including whether the matter should be re-transferred to the New South Wales District Registry, whether a proposed application to join another application for judicial review should be accepted, and whether the judge should recuse himself due to apprehended bias. The court also had to consider the implications of an existing application to set aside the transfer order.

The court determined that the matter should not be re-transferred to the New South Wales District Registry as it was appropriately transferred to the Western Australian District Registry due to the connection between the proceedings and matters occurring in Western Australia. The court refused the application to join the two review applications, finding that there were no common parties or impugned decisions, and no efficiencies would be gained from joining the applications. Regarding the application for recusal, the court found no basis for the judge to recuse himself and directed the Registry not to accept the proposed application for filing. The court concluded that the refusal by Registrar Morgan to accept Mr Nyoni's originating application for filing was not an abuse of process, and the application for judicial review was bound to fail.

The court made several orders, including adjourning the hearing of the interlocutory application to the date of the hearing of the originating application. The court also extended the time for the fourth respondent to file a notice of objection to competency and set a date for the hearing of that objection. The programming and listing of the hearing of the originating application was adjourned to a later date. Costs were reserved.