Ponnuswamy v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2002] FCA 867

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Ponnuswamy v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 867

PONNUSWAMY v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS & ORS

SACKVILLE J
SYDNEY
10 JULY 2002

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	OF 2002

BETWEEN:

NADAR PONNUSWAMY
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

AUSTRALIAN HIGH COMMISSION, DELHI
SECOND RESPONDENT

KERRIE SHEARSTON
THIRD RESPONDENT

JAMES JONES
FOURTH RESPONDENT

REGISTRAR, FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
FIFTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

SACKVILLE J

DATE OF ORDER:

10 JULY 2002

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The Registrar should refuse to accept the documents presented by the applicant.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	OF 2002

BETWEEN:

NADAR PONNUSWAMY
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

AUSTRALIAN HIGH COMMISSION, DELHI
SECOND RESPONDENT

KERRIE SHEARSTON
THIRD RESPONDENT

JAMES JONES
FOURTH RESPONDENT

REGISTRAR, FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
FIFTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	SACKVILLE J
DATE:	10 JULY 2002
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. Federal Court Rules O 46 r 7A provide as follows:

   “If a document presented to a Registrar in any proceeding, including any document which is or will if issue  become an originating document, appears to a Registrar on its face to be an abuse of the process of the Court or to be frivolous or vexatious, the Registrar may refuse to accept or issue it or may seek the direction of a Judge who may direct him -

   (a)to accept or issue it; or

   (b)to refuse to accept or issue it; or

   (c)to refuse to accept or issue it without the leave of a Judge first had and obtained.”

2. The applicant has sought to file an application.  The respondents named in the application are as set out in the title to the proceedings.

3. It is extremely difficult to understand the nature of the claim the applicant wishes to make.  In part, this is because the application and what purports to be a supporting affidavit are handwritten and very difficult to decipher.  However, the material is difficult to understand principally because neither the application nor the affidavit specifies the nature of the relief sought against any of the five respondents and does not identify grounds upon which any relief might be sought.

4. The applicant appears to have a complaint relating to the failure of one or more officers of the Department of Immigration to insert a re-entry visa in the applicant’s Indian passport.  There is no indication as to how this refusal might give rise to any entitlement in the applicant to seek relief in this Court.

5. The applicant had annexed documentation to his affidavit.  Unfortunately, none of this material appears to be relevant to any complaint that the applicant wishes to make concerning the apparent refusal to issue him with a re-entry visa.

6. It seems to me that the document the applicant wishes to file is frivolous or vexatious, or alternatively, would constitute an abuse of the process of the Court if filing were permitted.  In the circumstances, I think the appropriate course is to direct the Registrar to refuse to accept the documents presented by the applicant.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice SACKVILLE.

Associate:

Dated:            10 July 2002