Sandilands v Registrar Parkyn

Link copied
Case Copied 14 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Sandilands v Registrar Parkyn [2025] FCA 41

File number(s): NSD 1306 of 2024
Judgment of: PERRY J
Date of judgment: 5 February 2025
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for an
extension of time to review a Registrar’s decision under r 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) to reject documents for filing — jurisdiction of the Court to review decisions of the Registrar — whether the original application and accompanying documents are frivolous and vexatious — where there are no reasonable prospects of success — application dismissed
Legislation:

Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) s 183

Copyright Regulations 2017 (Cth)

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 2.26, 2.27, 31.02
Cases cited:

AHZ21 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 884

Bechara v Bates [2018] FCA 460

Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen [1984] FCA 186; (1984) 3 FCR 344

Katoa v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] HCA 28; (2022) 276 CLR 579

Keane v Registrar of the Federal Court of Australia [2024] FCA 1204

Kostov v Registrar of the Federal Court [2021] FCA 1559

Sandilands, in the application of Sandilands [2022] ACopyT 3
Division: General Division
Registry: New South Wales
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: General and Personal Insolvency
Number of paragraphs: 26
Date of last submission/s: 18 December 2024
Date of hearing: Determined on the papers
Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant was self-represented.
Counsel for the Respondent:  The respondent did not appear.

ORDERS

NSD 1306 of 2024
BETWEEN:

PETER SANDILANDS

Applicant
AND:

REGISTRAR NIC PARKYN

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

PERRY J

DATE OF ORDER:

5 FEBRUARY 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Pursuant to r 2.27(e) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the Registry be directed not to accept the applicant’s application for an extension of time filed on 19 September 2024.

2.The application for an extension of time within which to challenge the Respondent’s decision on 13 October 2023 to refuse to accept documents for filing pursuant to r 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) is dismissed.

3.There be no order as to costs.

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


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

PERRY J:

1.                 INTRODUCTION

  1. The applicant, Mr Peter Sandilands, seeks an extension of time within which to challenge a decision of the respondent, Registrar Nic Parkyn, to refuse to accept documents for filing pursuant to r 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (FCA Rules). 

  2. On 28 October 2024, the respondent filed a submitting notice, submitting to any order the Court may make save as to costs. 

  3. Following consent from the applicant in a letter dated 13 November 2024, I made orders on 21 November 2024 for the matter to be determined on the papers.  I granted the applicant leave until 18 December 2024 to file any written submissions in support of his application.  No submissions were filed.  

  4. The applicant is…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Sandilands v Registrar Parkyn and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2025] FCA 41
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Sandilands v Registrar Parkyn, the applicant sought to challenge the Registrar's decision under r 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) to reject documents for filing. The matter originated from an earlier application by the applicant to file a proceeding in the Copyright Tribunal against the Commonwealth and the States for remuneration under s 183 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). The Copyright Tribunal had dismissed the applicant's claim, and the Registrar subsequently refused to accept various documents submitted by the applicant in the Federal Court.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Registry should be directed not to accept the applicant's application for an extension of time filed on 19 September 2024, pursuant to r 2.27(e) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). Additionally, the court needed to determine if the original application and accompanying documents were frivolous and vexatious, and whether there were reasonable prospects of success in challenging the Registrar's decision.

The court found that the applicant's documents were frivolous and vexatious on their face, as they did not identify any relevant legislative provisions or properly set out the basis for any alleged error. The affidavit accompanying the application was also improperly taken, as it failed to properly identify whether the applicant had sworn or affirmed the affidavit. Given these findings, the court concluded that the application for an extension of time was doomed to fail and would constitute an abuse of process. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the Registry was directed not to accept the applicant's application for an extension of time. There was no order as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Pursuant to r 2.27(e) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the Registry be directed not to accept the applicant’s application for an extension of time filed on 19 September 2024.

2. The application for an extension of time within which to challenge the Respondent’s decision on 13 October 2023 to refuse to accept documents for filing pursuant to r 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) is dismissed.

3. There be no order as to costs.

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

Background

Background to the litigation

In the absence of submissions as to why an extension of time should be granted and for the reasons set out below, I find that the Registry should be directed not to accept the applicant’s application for an extension of time filed on 19 September 2024, pursuant to r 2.27(e) of the FCA Rules. 2. BACKGROUND This matter originated in an application by the applicant to file a proceeding in the Copyright Tribunal against the Commonwealth and the States for a determination of remuneration under s 183 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). As Perram J (in his capacity as Deputy President of the Tribunal) set out in Sandilands, in the application of Sandilands [2022] ACopyT 3 at [2] (the Copyright Decision):As Mr Sandilands explained, his contention was that he had sent a report to the Prime Minister in 2002. The report was prepared by Mr Sandilands whilst at the University of Western Sydney. He says that the Commonwealth and the States have acknowledged his report and he is therefore entitled to remuneration from the Tribunal in the sum of $120 million per annum. He says this sum should be awarded from 6 December 2002 and should be paid to him in the form of 10-year Treasury Bonds. In the Copyright Decision, given on 7 June 2022, Perram J found that the applicant had failed to allege anything beyond that the Commonwealth and the States had acknowledged his report, which did not amount to a cognisable claim under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (at [5]). In particular, the applicant had failed to identify the acts of reproduction and publishing that he said the Commonwealth or the States had engaged in, which was necessary before any question of remuneration under s 183(5) could be meaningful (at [4]). His Honour further held that the applicant’s claim suffered several formal defects as a result of which it did not comply with the Copyright Regulations 2017 (Cth) (at [6]). Justice Perram therefore directed the Registrar not to accept the applicant’s documents for filing in the Tribunal. Subsequently, the applicant sought to file various documents in the Federal Court which were refused. On 13 October 2023, the National Duty Registrar wrote to the applicant outlining the reasons for refusing to accept a Form 67 application for an extension of time and accompanying Form 59 affidavit for filing. The letter stated:I refer to the Form 67 Application for an extension of time and Form 59 Affidavit that you sought to lodge in the Sydney registry of the Federal Court of Australia on 13 October 2023. The Registry referred your documents to me for consideration in my capacity as National Duty Registrar. I have carefully considered the content of your documents and advise that I am unable to accept the documents pursuant to Rule 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.Rule 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 provides that:A Registrar may refuse to accept a document (including a document that would, if accepted, become an originating application) if the Registrar is satisfied that the document is an abuse of process of the Court or is frivolous or vexatious:(a)on the face of the document; or(b)by reference to any documents already filed or submitted for filing with the document.I am satisfied having considered the content of the documents that the documents are on their face frivolous or vexatious. The draft form 66 attached to your application for an extension of time does not identify any legislative provisions relevant to your application or otherwise properly set out the basis for any alleged error. I consider that your application would be doomed to fail and it would constitute an abuse of process of the Court if it were accepted for filing.Further, your affidavit dated 7 June 2023 has not been properly taken. The witness to your affidavit has failed to identify in the jurat whether you have sworn or affirmed your affidavit.For the above reasons, I have refused to accept your documents for filing.

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.