Sandilands v Registrar Parkyn

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Sandilands v Registrar Parkyn [2025] FCA 358  

File number(s):

NSD 235 of 2025

Judgment of:

WIGNEY J

Date of judgment:

11 April 2025

Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for extension of time and leave to appeal from decision of this Court dismissing applicant’s earlier application for an extension of time within which to institute proceedings in this Court – application dismissed

Legislation:

Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) s 183

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 20(3)(b), 24(1AA)(a)

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 2.26, 2.27

Cases cited:

Sandilands v Registrar Parkyn [2025] FCA 41

Sandilands, in the application of Sandilands [2022] ACopyT 3

Tran v Singh [2019] FCA 70

Division:

General Division

Registry:

New South Wales

National Practice Area:

Other Federal Jurisdiction

Number of paragraphs:

12

Date of hearing:

Application determined on the papers

Counsel for the applicant:

The applicant was self-represented

Counsel for the respondent: 

The respondent did not appear

ORDERS

NSD 235 of 2025

BETWEEN:

PETER SANDILANDS

Applicant

AND:

REGISTRAR NIC PARKYN

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	WIGNEY J
DATE OF ORDER:	11 APRIL 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicant’s application for extension of time and leave to appeal dated 24 February 2025 and filed on 25 February 2025 be dismissed.

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

WIGNEY J:

1. The applicant, Mr Peter Sandilands, has filed an application for an extension of time and leave to appeal a judgment of a Judge of this Court.  That judgment dismissed Mr Sandilands’ application for an extension of time within which to seek judicial review of a decision of the respondent, a Registrar of this Court.  For the reasons that follow, Mr Sandilands’ application must be dismissed.  It is not only effectively incompetent, but also demonstrably without merit and the documentation filed by Mr Sandilands is manifestly deficient and defective. 

2. The essential facts relating to Mr Sandilands’ application are as follows.

3. Sometime prior to June 2022, Mr Sandilands attempted to file documents in the Copyright Tribunal in which he purported to seek a determination of remuneration pursuant to s 183 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). On 7 June 2022, Justice Perram, then a Deputy President of the Tribunal, ordered that the Registrar not accept Mr Sandilands’ documents for filing, essentially because the documents did not disclose a cognisable claim under s 183(5): Sandilands, in the application of Sandilands [2022] ACopyT 3 (ACTD) at [5]. The documents also suffered from several formal defects: ACDT at [6].

4. In October 2023, Mr Sandilands sought to file documents in this Court, one which purported to be an application for an extension of time to commence proceedings seeking judicial review of the Tribunal’s determination not to accept his documents for filing (the ACDT). On 13 October 2023, the respondent advised Mr Sandilands that he had refused to accept Mr Sandilands’ documents for filing pursuant to r 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules