Legal Research
Cases
Reaper v Luxton

Reaper v Luxton

Case [2015] FCA 430 11 May 2015

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Reaper v Luxton [2015] FCA 430

Citation: Reaper v Luxton [2015] FCA 430

Parties: BRETT REAPER v REGISTRAR TIM LUXTON

File number: VID 119 of 2015

Judge: TRACEY J

Date of judgment: 11 May 2015

Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – whether a Deputy District Registrar of the Federal Court of Australia erred in decision made pursuant to Rule 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) to reject an interlocutory application submitted for filing – whether filing of interlocutory application constitutes abuse of process

Legislation: Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1976 (Cth)
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 153B
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 35A(5)
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 2.26
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39B

Cases cited: Druett v Segal [2011] FCA 1191 – cited
Reaper v Baycorp Collections PDL (Australia) Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 13 – cited
Reaper v Baycorp Collections PDL (Australia) Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 426 – cited
Reaper v Baycorp Collections PDL (Australia) Pty Ltd(No 3) [2014] FCA 729 – cited
Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Limited (2010) 268 ALR 222 – cited
Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378 – cited

Date of hearing: 1 May 2015

Place: Melbourne

Division: GENERAL DIVISION

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 24

Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person

Counsel for the Respondent: The Respondent entered a submitting appearance

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 119 of 2015

BETWEEN:
BRETT REAPER
Applicant

AND:
REGISTRAR TIM LUXTON
Respondent

JUDGE:

TRACEY J

DATE OF ORDER:

11 MAY 2015

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application be dismissed.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 119 of 2015

BETWEEN:
BRETT REAPER
Applicant

AND:
REGISTRAR TIM LUXTON
Respondent

JUDGE:

TRACEY J

DATE:

11 MAY 2015

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

On 16 September 2013 Mr Reaper applied to the Court for an order under s 153B of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (“the Act”) annulling a sequestration order which had been made by a Registrar of the then Federal Magistrates Court on 7 March 2013. After some adjournments the annulment application was fixed for hearing by Pagone J on 20 January 2014. On 20 January 2014 Mr Reaper complained about the late filing and serving of certain documents by the respondents. In order to ensure that Mr Reaper had the opportunity of considering and responding to this material the hearing was adjourned until 22 January 2014. At the conclusion of argument on that day his Honour reserved judgment.
On 28 January 2014 his Honour ordered that the application be dismissed and published his reasons for so ordering: see Reaper v Baycorp Collections PDL (Australia) Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 13.
An application for an extension of time within which to file an appeal and for leave to appeal from his Honour’s decision…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Reaper v Luxton

Details

AGLC: Reaper v Luxton [2015] FCA 430
Case: [2015] FCA 430
Decision Date: 11 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Reaper initiated proceedings against Luxton in the Federal Court of Australia, seeking to challenge a decision made by a Deputy District Registrar. The central issue was whether the Deputy District Registrar had erred in rejecting an interlocutory application submitted by Reaper for filing. Furthermore, Reaper argued that the rejection constituted an abuse of process. The case hinged on the interpretation and application of Rule 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).

The court was required to determine whether the Deputy District Registrar's decision to reject the interlocutory application was legally sound. It was also necessary to assess whether the rejection constituted an abuse of process, a critical consideration in administrative law. The court examined the relevant provisions of the Federal Court Rules, including Rule 2.26, which governs the filing of applications. The court also considered the principles of procedural fairness and the potential for abuse of process under administrative law.

In reaching its decision, the court meticulously analysed the application and the grounds for rejection provided by the Deputy District Registrar. It found that the Deputy District Registrar's decision was within their discretion and in accordance with the applicable rules. The court further determined that there was no evidence of an abuse of process. Consequently, the court dismissed the application, affirming the Deputy District Registrar's decision.

The court concluded that the Deputy District Registrar did not err in rejecting the interlocutory application, and there was no abuse of process. Therefore, the application was dismissed, and no further orders were required.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application be dismissed.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Reaper v Luxton [2015] FCA 430

Most Recent Citation

Pearson v Ng [2015] FCA 1160

Cases citing this decision · 12 of 12 shown

Nyoni v Bird
[2021] FCA 959 Para 17

…Ltd (2010) 268 ALR 222, 230-231 [49]-[50] (Marshall, Cowdroy and Buchanan JJ); Rahman v Hedge [2012] FCA 68 [5] (Perram J); Reaper v Luxton [2015] FCA 430 [15] (Tracey J). Section 5 of the ADJR Act provides for the making of applications in this court to review decisions of that nature (amongst others) on certain…
Reaper v Baycorp Collections PDL (Australia) Pty Limited
[2020] FCA 631 Para 13

…basis that it was open to construe the proceeding that Mr Reaper had sought to initiate as an abuse of the court’s process: Reaper v Luxton [2015] FCA 430 (Tracey J); Reaper v Luxton [2015] FCA 1296 (Mortimer J). Perhaps unsurprisingly, the third application was also dismissed: Reaper v Luxton [2016] FCA 784 (Pag…
McDonald v Colbran
[2019] FCA 1937 Para 7

…Bank Ltd [2010] FCAFC 47; (2010) 268 ALR 222 at [49] (Marshall, Cowdroy and Buchanan JJ); Rahman v Hedge [2012] FCA 68 (Perram J); Reaper v Luxton [2015] FCA 430 (Tracey J).…
Nyoni v Murphy
[2018] FCAFC 75 Para 19

…ct to review the decision of a Registrar made under r 2.26 to refuse to accept a document for filing: Druett v Segal [2011] FCA 1191; Reaper v Luxton [2015] FCA 430; and Haque v Tesoriero [2017] FCA 86.…
Nyoni v Murphy (No 2)
[2017] FCA 1479 Para 10

…under r 2.26 of the 2011 Rules to refuse to accept a document for filing. These cases are: Druett v Segal [2011] FCA 1191 ( Druett ), Reaper v Luxton [2015] FCA 430 ( Reaper ) and Haque v Tesoriero [2017] FCA 86 ( Haque ).…
McDonald v Federal Court of Australia
[2017] FCA 1216 Para 27

…In Reaper v Luxton [2015] FCA 430 Tracey J reached a similar conclusion to that of Perram J in Rahman.…
Vrsecky as trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Reaper v Reaper
[2016] FCCA 3278 Para 8

…15] FCCA 32. e)an application before Tracey J in which judgment was delivered (unsuccessfully for Mr Reaper) on 11 May 2015;[9] [9] Reaper v Luxton [2015] FCA 430. f)an application before Mortimer J in which judgment was delivered (unsuccessfully for Mr Reaper) on 20 November 2015;[10] [10] Reaper v Luxton [2015]…
ZHANG v BULJAN
[2016] FCCA 2426 Para 6

…e reviewed either by way of an application for review or by an Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 proceeding.[1] [1] Reaper v Luxton [2015] FCA 430.…
Reaper v Luxton
[2016] FCA 784 Para 7

…se proceedings he had been informed that such issues required that they be brought in a separate proceeding and in proper form: see Reaper v Luxton [2015] FCA 430 at [22]. It is clear from this correspondence that what Mr Reaper wanted to do was to initiate separate proceedings to challenge the decision of the Fe…
Reaper v Baycorp Collections PDL (Australia) Pty Ltd
[2016] FCA 579 Para 2

…tcy. Mr Reaper sought judicial review of the Registrar’s decision which was dismissed on 11 May 2015: Reaper v Luxton [2015] FCA 430. In Reaper v Luxton , Tracey J stated at [6] that: The Registrar observed that the material lodged for filing focussed on the same matters which had been dealt with in Pagone J’s re…
Reaper v Luxton
[2015] FCA 1296 Para 10

…d the judicial review application was heard and determined by Tracey J. Tracey J described the application in the following terms ( Reaper v Luxton [2015] FCA 430 at [12]-[13]): The application seeks a series of declarations and orders relating to the evidence heard by Pagone J and traverses findings made by him.…
Pearson v Ng
[2015] FCA 1160 Para 16

…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 1…

View all 12 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 7 of 7 shown

Reaper v Baycorp Collections PDL (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 3)
[2014] FCA 729 Para 9

…roceeding. This contempt charge was dismissed by Pagone J on 3 July 2014: see Reaper v Baycorp Collections PDL (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 3) [2014] FCA 729.…
Reaper v Baycorp Collections PDL (Australia) Pty Ltd
[2014] FCA 426 Para 3

…to file an appeal and for leave to appeal from his Honour’s decision was later dismissed: see Reaper v Baycorp Collections PDL (Australia) Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 426.…
Reaper v Baycorp Collections PDL (Australia) Pty Ltd
[2014] FCA 13 Para 2

…Honour ordered that the application be dismissed and published his reasons for so ordering: see Reaper v Baycorp Collections PDL (Australia) Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 13.…
Druett v Segal
[2011] FCA 1191 Para 16

…view pursuant to s 35A(5) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). Such a review would be conducted on a de novo basis: see Druett v Segal [2011] FCA 1191 (Robertson J).…
Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd
[2010] HCATrans 101 Para 15

…support the view that, in an appropriate case, a Registrar’s decision, made pursuant to Rule 2.26, could be reviewed under the ADJR Act: see Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Limited (2010) 268 ALR 222 at 230-1. I am, therefore, prepared to assume, in Mr Reaper’s favour, that he is entitled to seek judicial review of the Registrar’s decision.…
Walton v Gardiner
[1993] HCA 77 Para 18

…of them is that a person is seeking “to litigate anew a case which has already been disposed of by earlier proceedings”: see Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378 at 393.…
Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank
[2010] FCAFC 47 Para 15

…egistrar’s decision, made pursuant to Rule 2.26, could be reviewed under the ADJR Act: see Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Limited (2010) 268 ALR 222 at 230-1. I am, therefore, prepared to assume, in Mr Reaper’s favour, that he is entitled to seek judicial review of the Registrar’s decision.…

Legislation cited in this decision · 5

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)
153B 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)
35A(5) 2 mentions (from Para 16)
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)
2.26 2 mentions (from Para 5)
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)
39B 2 mentions (from Para 15)
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1976 (Cth)
1 mention (from Para 15)

Citation:	Reaper v Luxton [2015] FCA 430
Parties:	BRETT REAPER v REGISTRAR TIM LUXTON
File number:	VID 119 of 2015
Judge:	TRACEY J
Date of judgment:	11 May 2015
Catchwords:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – whether a Deputy District Registrar of the Federal Court of Australia erred in decision made pursuant to Rule 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) to reject an interlocutory application submitted for filing – whether filing of interlocutory application constitutes abuse of process
Legislation:	Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1976 (Cth) Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 153B Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 35A(5) Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 2.26 Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39B
Cases cited:	Druett v Segal [2011] FCA 1191 – cited Reaper v Baycorp Collections PDL (Australia) Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 13 – cited Reaper v Baycorp Collections PDL (Australia) Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 426 – cited Reaper v Baycorp Collections PDL (Australia) Pty Ltd(No 3) [2014] FCA 729 – cited Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Limited (2010) 268 ALR 222 – cited Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378 – cited
Date of hearing:	1 May 2015
Place:	Melbourne
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	24
Counsel for the Applicant:	The Applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	The Respondent entered a submitting appearance

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	VID 119 of 2015

BETWEEN:	BRETT REAPER Applicant
AND:	REGISTRAR TIM LUXTON Respondent

JUDGE:	TRACEY J
DATE OF ORDER:	11 MAY 2015
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

JUDGE:	TRACEY J
DATE:	11 MAY 2015
PLACE:	MELBOURNE