Samootin v Hannigan - [2012] FCA 462

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Samootin v Hannigan [2012] FCA 462

Citation: Samootin v Hannigan [2012] FCA 462

Parties: ALEXANDRA SAMOOTIN v DEPUTY DISTRICT REGISTRAR PADDY HANNIGAN, FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA, SYDNEY REGISTRY IN THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES

File number(s): NSD 627 of 2012 and NSD 628 of 2012

Judge: BENNETT J

Date of judgment: 4 May 2012

Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial review – Federal Court Rules r 2.26 – whether Deputy District Registrar properly exercised power to refuse to accept document for filing – whether Deputy District Registrar denied the applicant natural justice – no basis advanced and no evidence adduced in support of allegations of bias and sex discrimination

Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 r 2.26
Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth)

Cases cited: Buck v Bavone (1976) 135 CLR 110 cited
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu (1999) 197 CLR 611 cited
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng (2001) 205 CLR 507 cited
Minister of State for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273 cited
Rahman v Hedge [2012] FCA 68 cited
Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd (2009) 260 ALR 567 cited
SBBF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2002) FCAFC 358 cited
Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378 cited

Date of hearing: 4 May 2012

Place: Sydney

Division: GENERAL DIVISION

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 17

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 627 of 2012
NSD 628 of 2012

BETWEEN:
ALEXANDRA SAMOOTIN
Applicant

AND:
DEPUTY DISTRICT REGISTRAR PADDY HANNIGAN, FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA, SYDNEY REGISTRY IN THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES
Respondent

JUDGE:

BENNETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

4 MAY 2012

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

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

Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Order 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 627 of 2012
NSD 628 of 2012

BETWEEN:
ALEXANDRA SAMOOTIN
Applicant

AND:
DEPUTY DISTRICT REGISTRAR PADDY HANNIGAN, FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA, SYDNEY REGISTRY IN THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES
Respondent

JUDGE:

BENNETT J

DATE:

4 MAY 2012

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The applicant, Ms Samootin, sought to file two sets of documents in the Court. They were an interlocutory application together with an affidavit in support and an application for leave to appeal a decision of a judge of the Court together with an affidavit in support. A Deputy District Registrar of the Court (the Registrar) rejected both sets of documents pursuant to rule 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (the Rules) on the stated basis that the documents are an abuse of process and the applications are doomed to fail.
Ms Samootin has lodged originating applications for judicial review of each of those decisions. The details of her…

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 Samootin v Hannigan

Details

AGLC: Samootin v Hannigan [2012] FCA 462
Case: [2012] FCA 462
Decision Date: 4 May 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Samootin v Hannigan involved a dispute over the refusal of a Deputy District Registrar to accept a document for filing. The applicant, Samootin, sought judicial review of this decision, arguing that the refusal denied him natural justice. The respondent, Hannigan, was the Deputy District Registrar who had exercised her discretion to reject the document.

The court was required to determine whether the Deputy District Registrar had properly exercised her power to refuse to accept the document for filing and whether this action denied the applicant natural justice. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether there was any basis for the allegations of bias and sex discrimination raised by the applicant. The applicant did not advance any basis for these allegations, nor did he provide any evidence to support them.

The court found that the Deputy District Registrar had properly exercised her power to refuse to accept the document for filing. The court held that there was no basis for the applicant's allegations of bias and sex discrimination, as the applicant did not provide any evidence to support these claims. The court concluded that the applicant had not established a case for judicial review, and dismissed the application. The court made an order dismissing the applications and providing for the entry of orders in accordance with Order 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applications be dismissed.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Order 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.

Citation:	Samootin v Hannigan [2012] FCA 462
Parties:	ALEXANDRA SAMOOTIN v DEPUTY DISTRICT REGISTRAR PADDY HANNIGAN, FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA, SYDNEY REGISTRY IN THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES
File number(s):	NSD 627 of 2012 and NSD 628 of 2012
Judge:	BENNETT J
Date of judgment:	4 May 2012
Catchwords:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial review – Federal Court Rules r 2.26 – whether Deputy District Registrar properly exercised power to refuse to accept document for filing – whether Deputy District Registrar denied the applicant natural justice – no basis advanced and no evidence adduced in support of allegations of bias and sex discrimination
Legislation:	Federal Court Rules 2011 r 2.26 Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth)
Cases cited:	Buck v Bavone (1976) 135 CLR 110 cited Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu (1999) 197 CLR 611 cited Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng (2001) 205 CLR 507 cited Minister of State for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273 cited Rahman v Hedge [2012] FCA 68 cited Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd (2009) 260 ALR 567 cited SBBF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2002) FCAFC 358 cited Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378 cited
Date of hearing:	4 May 2012
Place:	Sydney
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	17

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	NSD 627 of 2012 NSD 628 of 2012

BETWEEN:	ALEXANDRA SAMOOTIN Applicant
AND:	DEPUTY DISTRICT REGISTRAR PADDY HANNIGAN, FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA, SYDNEY REGISTRY IN THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES Respondent

JUDGE:	BENNETT J
DATE OF ORDER:	4 MAY 2012
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

JUDGE:	BENNETT J
DATE:	4 MAY 2012
PLACE:	SYDNEY