Pearson v Ng

Case [2015] FCA 1160

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Pearson v Ng [2015] FCA 1160

Citation: Pearson v Ng [2015] FCA 1160
Parties: WILLIAM JOHN PEARSON v CHAUN NG (IN HIS CAPACITY AS DEPUTY DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA)
File number: NSD 734 of 2015
Judge: PERRY J
Date of judgment: 29 October 2015
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – application for review of decision of Deputy District Registrar of the Court to not accept an originating application for filing – jurisdiction to entertain judicial review application – no merit in unspecified allegations of actual or apprehended bias – inappropriateness of inclusion of scandalous and unsubstantiated allegations in affidavit in support of judicial review application – application dismissed
Legislation: Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 35A(5)
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), r 2.27
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 39B
Cases cited: Bahonko v Nurses Board of Victoria [2008] FCAFC 29
Fletcher International Exports Pty Ltd v Lott [2010] NSWCA 63
Kowalski v Chief Executive Officer of Medicare Australia (2010) 185 FCR 42; [2010] FCA 413
Michael Wilson & Partners Limited v Nicholls [2011] HCA 48; (2011) 244 CLR 427
R v Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; Ex parte Angliss Group (1969) 122 CLR 546
Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Epeabaka [2001] HCA 23; (2001) 206 CLR 128
Reaper v Luxton [2015] FCA 430
Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Limited [2010] FCAFC 47; (2010) 268 ALR 222
Date of hearing: Heard on the papers
Date of last submissions: The applicant did not provide submissions
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 26
Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant did not appear
Counsel for the Respondent: The respondent entered a submitting appearance, save as to costs

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 734 of 2015
BETWEEN:

WILLIAM JOHN PEARSON
Applicant
AND:

CHAUN NG (IN HIS CAPACITY AS DEPUTY DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA)
Respondent

JUDGE:

PERRY J

DATE OF ORDER:

29 OCTOBER 2015

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application is dismissed.

2.There be no order as to costs.

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


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 734 of 2015
BETWEEN:

WILLIAM JOHN PEARSON
Applicant
AND:

CHAUN NG (IN HIS CAPACITY AS DEPUTY DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA)
Respondent

JUDGE:

PERRY J

DATE:

29 OCTOBER 2015

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1.               INTRODUCTION

  1. By an originating application filed on 24 June 2015, Mr Pearson seeks judicial review of a decision by the Deputy District Registrar (the Registrar) not to accept an originating application for filing.  The Registrar has filed a notice dated 3 August 2015 submitting to any order the Court may make in the proceeding save as to costs.

  2. For the reasons given below,…

Continue reading Pearson v Ng

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Pearson v Ng [2015] FCA 1160
Case
[2015] FCA 1160
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Pearson v Ng involved Mr Pearson lodging an originating application with the Federal Court of Australia, which was not accepted for filing by the Registrar. Mr Pearson subsequently sought judicial review of the Registrar's decision, claiming it was unreasonable and that he was denied procedural fairness. The Registrar's decision was based on the originating application's failure to identify a cause of action or reference a Commonwealth law that would grant the Federal Court jurisdiction. Mr Pearson sought orders for the Court to accept his originating application, approve his fee exemption application, and refund any fees paid. The court examined whether the Registrar's decision was manifestly unreasonable and whether procedural fairness was denied. Additionally, the court considered if there was any demonstrated bias or prejudice in the Registrar's decision.

The court found that the Registrar's decision was not tainted by bias, as the reasons provided were rational and Mr Pearson was given an opportunity to address the deficiencies in the originating application. Furthermore, the court determined that the originating application was incomplete because it failed to identify a cause of action or reference a Commonwealth law that would grant the Federal Court jurisdiction. As such, the Registrar's decision was not manifestly unreasonable. The court dismissed the application for judicial review and made no order as to costs.

In conclusion, the application for judicial review of the Registrar's decision not to accept Mr Pearson's originating application for filing was dismissed. The court found no merit in the allegations of actual or apprehended bias, and the decision was rational and in accordance with the relevant rules and procedures. The originating application was incomplete, and the Registrar's decision was not manifestly unreasonable.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application is dismissed.

2. There be no order as to costs.

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

Background

Background to the litigation

For the reasons given below, the application is dismissed. 2. BACKGROUND2.1 The Registrar’s decision and the application for judicial review The application for judicial review annexes a letter from the Registrar dated 3 June 2015. The letter listed the documents submitted to the NSW Registry by Mr Pearson, including the originating application, and stated that a copy of the documents have been forwarded to the Deputy Registrar so that the concerns identified by him could be raised with the Chief Justice. Importantly for present purposes, the Registrar’s letter advised that: In your Originating Application, you have not identified any cause of action or referred to a Commonwealth law which you rely upon to enliven the jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Australia. Without providing any reference to a Commonwealth Act and the relevant sections within the Act which you say supports your Application, it is not possible to progress your matter in the Registry so that it can be accepted for filing and listed before a Judge for hearing. If you wish to press your Originating Application, please arrange for this specific information to be furnished in a new Application and returned to the Registry for consideration. In the meantime, your documents and accompanying cheque are returned to you. Mr Pearson alleges that he is aggrieved by the Registrar’s decision because “[t]he originating application substantially complied with the Federal Court of Australia Act, Rules, Practice Notes and precedent filings and Court information documents & Annual Reports”. He relies on the following grounds set out in his application for judicial review: 1.The Registrars decision was manifestly unreasonable2.The applicant was denied procedural fairness3.The Registrars demand for inclusion of the legislation sections was beyond the Courts public documents & Practice Note CM 24.Demonstrated bias & prejudice Mr Pearson seeks orders that the Court accept the originating application for filing, approve the applicant’s fee exemption application and refund any fees paid. Mr Pearson filed an affidavit in support of his judicial review application in which he explains with respect to the originating application the subject of the Registrar’s decision that: 3.The applicant’s originating application is the first in 73 years of existence.4.The application’s focus is on the mismanagement, malpractice & worse in the Department of Human Services, Centrelink & Medicare & their unacceptable attitude & treatment of others.5.The application also deals with the manner in which the Commonwealth employs, instructs & monitors its legal representatives & the manner in which the legal representatives conduct themselves.6.This is a matter of significant public interest. The applicant did not, however, seek to tender any copy of the (unfiled) originating application in the judicial review proceedings despite being afforded the opportunity to do so, as I explain. 2.2 Procedural steps in the application for judicial review

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

In the present case, the Registrar’s letter advising of his decision suggests that the Registrar applied an independent and impartial mind to a consideration of whether the originating application ought to be accepted for filing. In particular, the reasons given are rational, the letter explains that the applicant’s concerns are to be brought to the Chief Justice’s attention, and the applicant is given a further opportunity to address the deficiencies in the originating application and seek again to file the documentation, should he wish to do so. In my view, there is no merit in the allegation that the Registrar’s decision is tainted by actual or apprehended bias. 4. CONCLUSION For these reasons, the application for judicial review of the Registrar’s decision not to accept the originating application for filing is dismissed. Given the Registrar’s submitting appearance, there is no order as to costs.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

The Court did not receive any submission seeking an extension, nor any affidavit or submission pursuant to the 5 August 2015 orders. Accordingly, it is appropriate to decide the application on the papers before me in accordance with order 3 of the orders made 5 August 2015. The entirety of the papers filed in the proceedings are:(1)the application for judicial review filed by Mr Pearson on 24 June 2015;(2)an affidavit sworn by Mr Pearson on 23 June 2015 and filed on 24 June 2015; and(3)the submitting notice filed by the Registrar on 3 August 2015. 3. CONSIDERATION3.1 Jurisdiction to entertain the application for judicial review The Registrar’s decision not to accept the originating application for filing is administrative in nature and not judicial: Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Limited [2010] FCAFC 47; (2010) 268 ALR 222 (Satchithanantham) at 230 [49] (Marshall, Cowdroy and Buchanan JJ). Mr Pearson’s application for judicial review does not state whether judicial review is sought in this proceeding pursuant to the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (ADJR Act), s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) or some other law. However, I note that the Full Court in Satchithanantham at 230-231 [50] considered that a decision of the Registrar (without judicial direction) to refuse to accept for filing a document entitled “notice of appeal” on the ground that it was an abuse of process was a decision susceptible to review under the ADJR Act. I am therefore prepared to assume in the applicant’s favour that he seeks judicial review of the Registrar’s decision under the ADJR Act: see also by analogy Reaper v Luxton [2015] FCA 430 (Reaper) at [15] (Tracey J). It may also be that the Registrar’s decision is susceptible to review pursuant to s 35A(5) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth): Reaper at [16]. In any event, it is necessary for the applicant to show some form of reviewable error by the Registrar. 3.2 Ground 1: “The Registrar’s decision was manifestly unreasonable” Under r 2.27 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), a document will not be accepted for filing if:(a) it is not substantially complete; or(b) it does not substantially comply with these Rules; or(c) it is not properly signed; or(d) a Registrar has refused to accept the document; or(e) the Court has given a direction that the document not be accepted; or(f) the Court has given a direction that the document not be accepted without the Court’s leave, and leave has not been obtained. In his letter dated 3 June 2015, the Registrar explained that in his view Mr Pearson’s originating application was incomplete in that it failed to identify “any cause of action” or refer to “a Commonwealth law which you rely upon to enliven the jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Australia”. The Registrar also explained if Mr Pearson wished to press the originating application, he should include that information in a new application and return it to the Registry for consideration.