Seidler, in the application of Kathryn Seidler

[2013] FCA 125

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Seidler, in the application of Kathryn Seidler [2013] FCA 125

Citation:	Seidler, in the application of Kathryn Seidler [2013] FCA 125
Parties:	KATHRYN SEIDLER
Judge:	ROBERTSON J
Date of judgment:	22 February 2013
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – vexatious proceedings – application for leave to commence or continue a proceeding in the Court
Legislation:	Federal Court Rules 2011 rr 6.01, 6.02
Date of hearing:	Determined on the papers
Place:	Sydney
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	Catchwords

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

IN THE APPLICATION OF: KATHRYN SEIDLER
Applicant

JUDGE:	ROBERTSON J
DATE OF ORDER:	22 FEBRUARY 2013
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Leave to continue or commence a proceeding is refused.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

IN THE APPLICATION OF: KATHRYN SEIDLER
Applicant

JUDGE:	ROBERTSON J
DATE:	22 FEBRUARY 2013
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This matter has come before me today in chambers as duty judge.

2. On 2 November 2011, Perram J made orders under r 6.02 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 that Kathryn Seidler not continue with any proceeding commenced by her in this Court without the leave of the Court and that Kathryn Seidler not commence any proceeding in this Court without the leave of the Court.

3. Kathryn Seidler forwarded to the Court on 21 February 2013 three documents: the first entitled “Originating application”; the second entitled “Affidavit”; and the third a letter to the Court. Each is dated 21 February 2013.

4. It is not clear whether Kathryn Seidler is by these documents seeking to continue with a proceeding commenced by her in this Court or whether she is seeking to commence a proceeding in this Court. The same parties are named in the three documents as in matter NSD 893 of 2011. Whichever step she is seeking to take I refuse leave under r 6.03 of the Federal Court Rules.

5. One thing which is clear is that the three documents do not purport to constitute a notice of appeal, whether out of time or otherwise, in respect of the judgments of the Court given in 2011 in matters in which Kathryn Seidler was a party.

6. My reasons for refusing leave are as follows.

7. First, the documents are incoherent and largely incomprehensible. The Court should not be required to deal with them further.

8. Second, insofar as the documents are able to be understood they appear to seek suppression and non-publication orders in part in relation to judgments and evidence that have long been public.

9. Third, in part the documents constitute an abuse of process. For example, one of the documents seeks: “Orders that errors and/or inferences and surmise are removed from judgments …”. As I have said, the three documents do not purport to constitute a notice of appeal in respect of any judgments of the Court. Other parts of the documents appear to seek less directly to go behind those earlier judgments of the Court. In this category, the three documents, for example, seek that the vexatious litigant orders of Perram J be removed.

10. For these reasons I refuse leave to Kathryn Seidler to continue with or to commence the proceeding and I therefore refuse leave to file the three documents.

I certify that the preceding ten (10) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Robertson.

Associate:

Dated:       22 February 2013