FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Nyoni v Murphy (No 2) [2017] FCA 1479
File number(s): WAD 193 of 2017 Judge(s): SIOPIS J Date of judgment: 8 December 2017 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – a Registrar refused under r 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) to accept the applicant’s application for filing – whether the Federal Court has power pursuant to s 35A(5) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) to review a decision of a Registrar under r 2.26 not to accept a document for filing. Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 35A(5)
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) s 5
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 2.26, 39.05
Federal Court Rules 1979 (Cth) O 46 r 7A(1)
Cases cited: Druett v Segal [2011] FCA 1191
Reaper v Luxton [2015] FCA 430
Haque v Tesoriero [2017] FCA 86
Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd (2010) 268 ALR 222
Date of hearing: 29 November 2017 Registry: Western Australia Division: General Division National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations Sub-area: General and Personal Insolvency Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 26 Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person. Counsel for the First, Second and Third Respondents: Mr C Beetham Solicitor for the First, Second and Third Respondents: State Solicitor’s Office ORDERS
WAD 193 of 2017 BETWEEN: EMSON NYONI
Applicant
AND: JILLIAN MURPHY
First Respondent
THERESA BEECH
Second Respondent
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WA
Third Respondent
JUDGE:
SIOPIS J
DATE OF ORDER:
8 DECEMBER 2017
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The applicant’s application of 14 September 2017 for review of the decision of a Registrar of this Court made on 24 August 2017 not to accept the applicant’s application and affidavit both dated 24 August 2017 for filing, is dismissed.
2.The applicant is to pay the respondents’ costs.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SIOPIS J:
This is an application by Mr Nyoni, the applicant, for review of a decision of a Registrar of this Court made on 24 August 2017 to reject Mr Nyoni’s interlocutory application and supporting affidavit both dated 24 August 2017 for filing. Mr Nyoni’s application for review relies upon the power of a Court under s 35A(5) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (the Federal Court Act) to review a decision of a Registrar.
By way of background, Mr Nyoni and the respondents have been involved in litigation against each other on a number of occasions since 2010. In 2015, the respondents caused a bankruptcy notice to issue to Mr Nyoni, which was founded on costs orders made in the respondents’ favour in 2013 and 2014 totalling in excess of $80,000. On 17 February 2017, a judge of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia made a sequestration order against the estate of Mr Nyoni based…
Continue reading Nyoni v Murphy (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Nyoni v Murphy (No 2) [2017] FCA 1479
- Case
- [2017] FCA 1479
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In addressing the legal issue, the Court examined the relevant statutory and procedural frameworks. The Court considered the scope of section 35A(5) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), which allows for review of certain decisions made by a single judge or Registrar. The Court found that while section 35A(5) provides a broad avenue for review, it does not extend to decisions made under rule 2.26 concerning the acceptance or refusal of documents for filing. The Court concluded that such decisions fall within the inherent jurisdiction of the Registrar and are not subject to judicial review under section 35A(5). Consequently, the Court dismissed the applicant's application for review and ordered that the applicant pay the respondents' costs.
The Court's decision underscores the distinction between administrative decisions that are subject to judicial review and those that are within the inherent jurisdiction of a Registrar. The outcome highlights the importance of adhering to procedural rules and the limitations on judicial intervention in the internal processes of the Court.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The applicant’s application of 14 September 2017 for review of the decision of a Registrar of this Court made on 24 August 2017 not to accept the applicant’s application and affidavit both dated 24 August 2017 for filing, is dismissed.
2. The applicant is to pay the respondents’ costs.
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.