Reynolds and Decision-Maker (Practice and procedure)

Case [2025] ARTA 274

Reynolds and Decision-Maker (Practice and procedure) [2025] ARTA 274 (27 March 2025)

Applicant/s:  Kellan John Reynolds

Respondent:  Decision-Maker

Tribunal Number:                2025/2101

Tribunal:General Member J Papalia  

Place:Perth

Date:27 March 2025

Decision:The application dated 18 March 2025 is dismissed under
s 101(1)(a) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth).

..................[SGD]......................................................

General Member J Papalia

CATCHWORDS

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for review – whether application frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance – purported review of judicial decisions – mortgage dispute – abuse of process – application dismissed

LEGISLATION

Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth), s 101(a)

CASES

In the matter of an application by Kellan John Reynolds for leave to appeal [2025] HCADisp 23
In the matter of an application by Kellan John Reynolds for leave to issue or file [2024] HCASJ 43
Re Robertson and Decision-Maker [2025] ARTA 22
Re Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA); Ex parte Gates [2018] WASC 213
Reynolds v National Australia Bank Limited [2024] HCASL 5
Samuels v State of Western Australia (2005) 30 WAR 473

Statement of Reasons

  1. By application dated 18 March 2025, the Applicant purports to seek review of a decision made by Edelman and Gleeson JJ of the High Court of Australia on 6 March 2025 to refuse him an extension of time and leave to appeal from a judgment of a single judge of that Court given on 5 December 2024.[1]  The primary judge refused the Applicant leave to file a second application for special leave to appeal from orders made by Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia on 20 April 2023 regarding a mortgage dispute with the Other Party.[2]  The first application for special leave to appeal was refused on 8 February 2024.[3] 

    [1] In the matter of an application by Kellan John Reynolds for leave to appeal [2025] HCADisp 23.

    [2] In the matter of an application by Kellan John Reynolds for leave to issue or file [2024] HCASJ 43.

  2. None of these decisions, including the underlying mortgage dispute, are reviewable by the Tribunal.[4]

    [4] See Re Robertson and Decision-Maker [2025] ARTA 22 at [17].

  3. The application is properly characterised as being ‘frivolous’ and an ‘abuse of process’.[5]

    [5] See Samuels v State of Western Australia (2005) 30 WAR 473, [11]; Re Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA); Ex parte Gates [2018] WASC 213, [25]-[29].

  4. It shall be dismissed accordingly.   

    DECISION

  5. The application dated 18 March 2025 is dismissed under s 101(1)(a) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth).

I certify that the preceding 5 (five) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of General Member Papalia

..........[SGD]..............................................................

Associate

Dated: 27 March 2025


Details
AGLC
Reynolds and Decision-Maker (Practice and procedure) [2025] ARTA 274
Case
[2025] ARTA 274
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Reynolds and Decision-Maker heard an application for review brought forth by Reynolds, seeking to challenge a decision made by Decision-Maker. The dispute revolves around a mortgage dispute, where Reynolds claimed the Decision-Maker had erred in their interpretation of certain mortgage terms. The matter was brought before the court to determine whether the application for review was frivolous, vexatious, misconceived, or lacking in substance. The court also needed to consider if there was an abuse of process.

The court examined whether the application was frivolous or vexatious, particularly given Reynolds’ history of making similar claims. The court considered the nature of the review sought, which was a purported review of judicial decisions, and whether such a review was permissible under the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth). The court found that the application did not meet the criteria for a valid review and was instead an abuse of process. The court determined that the application was misconceived and lacking in substance, as it did not present a valid legal challenge to the Decision-Maker's decision.

Given the findings, the court dismissed the application under section 101(1)(a) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth). The court held that the application was not only frivolous but also an abuse of the judicial process, as it was brought without a genuine intention to seek a legal remedy. The decision was final and binding, with no further recourse available to Reynolds for the review sought.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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 shall be dismissed accordingly. DECISION The application dated 18 March 2025 is dismissed under s 101(1)(a) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth).

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.