Reaper v Luxton

Case [2015] FCA 1296

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Reaper v Luxton [2015] FCA 1296

Citation: Reaper v Luxton [2015] FCA 1296
Parties: BRETT REAPER v REGISTRAR TIM LUXTON
File numbers: VID 483 of 2015
VID 484 of 2015
VID 485 of 2015
Judge: MORTIMER J
Date of judgment: 20 November 2015
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 2.26 – applications for judicial review of decision by Registrar to reject documents for filing on the basis of abuse of process – applications dismissed
Legislation:

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) s 5
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)
Criminal Code (Cth)
Federal Courtof Australia Act1976 (Cth) s 35A(5)

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 2.26, 34.11, 34.12; Div 34.2; Pt 42
Cases cited: Reaper v Baycorp Collections PDL (Australia) Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 13
Reaper vBaycorp Collections PDL (Australia) Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 426
Reaper v Baycorp Collections PDL (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 3) [2014] FCA 729
Reaper v Luxton [2015] FCA 430
Walton v Gardiner [1993] HCA 77; 177 CLR 378
Date of hearing: 17 November 2015
Place: Melbourne
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 53
Counsel for the applicant: The applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the respondent: The respondent filed a submitting notice

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 483 of 2015
BETWEEN:

BRETT REAPER
Applicant
AND:

REGISTRAR TIM LUXTON
Respondent

JUDGE:

MORTIMER J

DATE OF ORDER:

20 NOVEMBER 2015

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application in VID 483 of 2015 is dismissed.

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


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 484 of 2015
BETWEEN:

BRETT REAPER
Applicant
AND:

REGISTRAR TIM LUXTON
Respondent

JUDGE:

MORTIMER J

DATE OF ORDER:

20 NOVEMBER 2015

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application in VID 484 of 2015 is dismissed.

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


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 485 of 2015
BETWEEN:

BRETT REAPER
Applicant
AND:

REGISTRAR TIM LUXTON
Respondent

JUDGE:

MORTIMER J

DATE OF ORDER:

20 NOVEMBER 2015

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application in VID 485 of 2015 is dismissed.

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


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 483 of 2015
VID 484 of 2015
VID 485 of 2015
BETWEEN:

BRETT REAPER
Applicant
AND:

REGISTRAR TIM LUXTON
Respondent

JUDGE:

MORTIMER J

DATE:

20 NOVEMBER 2015

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. Before the Court are three applications for judicial review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth). Each application has been filed by the applicant Mr Reaper seeking review of the decision of the respondent, a Registrar of this Court, to refuse for filing three applications…

Continue reading Reaper v Luxton

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Reaper v Luxton [2015] FCA 1296
Case
[2015] FCA 1296
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Reaper v Luxton involved an application for judicial review by Mr Reaper, the applicant, against the Registrar of the Federal Court, Luxton, who had rejected the filing of certain documents. The Registrar's decision was based on the grounds that the documents constituted an abuse of process. The applicant sought to file three tranches of documents, dated 29 June 2015, 2 July 2015, and 17 July 2015, which he intended to use in applications for commitment for trial on indictment, declarations, and compensation. The Registrar found that these documents were an attempt to relitigate matters already decided by Justice Pagone, who had previously refused the applicant's application for an annulment of his bankruptcy. The Registrar further noted that the documents did not contain particulars of any charges against the named individuals, Mr Hanford, Mr Ellis, and Mr Macey.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Registrar's decision to reject the documents for filing was justified. The court had to determine whether the documents indeed represented an abuse of process under the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 2.26. The applicant argued against the rejection, submitting that the documents were necessary for his applications. However, the court needed to assess the merits of the Registrar's findings that the documents were an attempt to relitigate closed matters and lacked particulars of charges against the named individuals.

The court found that the Registrar's decision was well-reasoned and in line with the Federal Court Rules. The Registrar had carefully considered the content of the documents and concluded that they sought to relitigate matters already decided by Justice Pagone. The court agreed with the Registrar's assessment that the documents were vague and incapable of supporting a prosecution, and they lacked particulars of charges against the named individuals. The court upheld the Registrar's decision, finding that the documents constituted an abuse of process. Consequently, the applications for judicial review were dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the applications in VID 483 of 2015, VID 484 of 2015, and VID 485 of 2015 were all dismissed, with the Registrar's decision to reject the documents for filing upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application in VID 483 of 2015 is dismissed.

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

2. The application in VID 484 of 2015 is dismissed.

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

3. The application in VID 485 of 2015 is dismissed.

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

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

It has been necessary to set out the history of these decisions in some detail, so as to understand the Registrar’s decision in each of the three applications, to which I now turn.THE REGISTRAR’S DECISION The Registrar’s decision on the three applications was contained in a letter to the applicant dated 10 August 2015. It relevantly stated:I refer to the 3 tranches of documents (Documents) which you sought to file on 29 June 2015, 2 July 2015 and 17 July 2015 respectively. I also refer to my earlier letters to you, the most recent of which are dated 28 May 2015 and 23 June 2015. …I have reviewed and considered each of the Documents. I note that many of them are the same as, or similar to, documents which you have sought to file in the past. For that reason, some of the comments below are similar to comments contained in my earlier letters to you.Having considered each of the Documents, I am satisfied that, on 2 independent bases, they comprise an abuse of process. My reasons for coming to this view are as follows:1. A range of relief is sought in the 3 applications (commitment for trial on indictment, declarations and compensation). However, when the Documents are read closely it is plain that you are again seeking to relitigate the matters the subject of Justice Pagone’s decision refusing your application for an annulment of your bankruptcy (see Reaper v Baycorp Collections PDL (Australia) Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 13). As was the case with previous lodgements, the focus of the Documents is on the relationship between the credit cards known as “CC66” and “CC93”. This is unchanged by reference now being made to the designations “GRC93” and “AVC93”.2. I note that the application addressed to Mr Ellis is, on its face, concerned with the proof of debt which he appears to have provided to your trustee in bankruptcy. I have, however, taken it to comprise a further attempt to relitigate the matters referred to above, as the allegations made against Mr Ellis concern the existence of the debt relied upon by the petitioning creditor, a matter fundamental to the earlier proceedings. My views in this regard are supported by the fact that the allegations made against Mr Ellis are in most instances vague and incapable of supporting a prosecution.3. On the basis that you are seeking to relitigate the matters the subject of Justice Pagone’s decision refusing your application for an annulment of your bankruptcy, I am satisfied that the Documents comprise an abuse of process.4. I note that in the case of each of Mr Hanford, Mr Ellis and Mr Macey, neither the summons nor the information contain particulars of any charge whatsoever. For this reason alone, I am also satisfied that the Documents comprise an abuse of process.As I am satisfied that the Documents comprise an abuse of process, I refuse to accept them for filing pursuant to r 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules.RESOLUTION On the morning of the hearing of the judicial review applications, Mr Reaper filed written submissions supporting the applications. I have taken those submissions into account and address them where necessary below. Mr Reaper also agreed to the two letters referred to in Registrar Luxton’s decision (of 28 May 2015 and 23 June 2015) being marked as exhibits in each application.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.