Spain v Belcher - [2014] FCA 663

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Spain v Belcher [2014] FCA 663

Citation: Spain v Belcher [2014] FCA 663

Parties: ERIC RAYMOND SPAIN v M. BELCHER (DEPUTY DISTRICT REGISTRAR - BRISBANE)

File number(s): QUD 120 of 2014

Judge(s): GREENWOOD J

Date of judgment: 23 June 2014

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – consideration of an application for review of a decision of a Deputy District Registrar of the Court acting under rule 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 to refuse acceptance of a document for filing – consideration of the exercise of supervisory judicial review of the decision in any event – dismissal of the application

Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011, r 2.26

Cases cited: Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378 – cited and quoted

Date of hearing: 23 June 2014

Place: Brisbane

Division: GENERAL DIVISION

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 20

Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant appeared in person

Counsel for the Respondent: No appearance

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

QUD 120 of 2014

BETWEEN:
ERIC RAYMOND SPAIN
Applicant

AND:
M. BELCHER (DEPUTY DISTRICT REGISTRAR - BRISBANE)
Respondent

JUDGE:

GREENWOOD J

DATE OF ORDER:

23 JUNE 2014

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application is dismissed.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

QUD 120 of 2014

BETWEEN:
ERIC RAYMOND SPAIN
Applicant

AND:
M. BELCHER (DEPUTY DISTRICT REGISTRAR - BRISBANE)
Respondent

JUDGE:

GREENWOOD J

DATE:

23 JUNE 2014

PLACE:

BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

These proceedings are concerned with an application by Mr Eric Raymond Spain for an order of review pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Decision (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (the “AD(JR) Act”) of a decision of Deputy District Registrar Belcher made under r 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 to refuse acceptance of a document for filing in the Court.
Deputy District Registrar Belcher refused acceptance of an application by which Mr Spain sought relief in the exercise of the original jurisdiction of the Court on the contended footing that jurisdiction is conferred upon the Court under s 39B(1A) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) to grant the relief sought.
Deputy District Registrar Belcher wrote a letter to Mr Spain on 5 March 2014 in which he said that in his view Mr Spain’s application could not succeed and was clearly foredoomed to fail and thus, without having any regard to the propriety of Mr Spain’s application, the originating application was to be rejected for filing on the basis that, if filed, the proceeding, commenced by the application, would amount to an abuse of process. Rule 2.26 is in these terms:
2.26Refusal to accept document for filing – abuse of process or frivolous or vexatious documents
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…

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 Spain v Belcher

Details

AGLC: Spain v Belcher [2014] FCA 663
Case: [2014] FCA 663
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Eric Raymond Spain brought an application against Deputy District Registrar Belcher for judicial review of a decision made under rule 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 to refuse acceptance of a document for filing. The document, which Spain intended to file as an originating application, sought relief in the exercise of the Court's original jurisdiction, claiming, among other things, the removal of all references to God from the Constitution of Australia and a public apology from the Commonwealth of Australia to God. The Deputy District Registrar Belcher refused to accept the document for filing, considering it an abuse of process and likely to fail. Spain sought a review of this decision under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth). The court was required to determine whether Deputy District Registrar Belcher's decision was legally sound and if Spain's application for judicial review was justified.

The court found that the decision made by Deputy District Registrar Belcher under rule 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 was an administrative decision for the purposes of section 3 of the AD(JR) Act. It further held that the Deputy District Registrar's decision was valid as the proposed proceeding was clearly foredoomed to fail. The claims for relief in Spain's application were deemed to be irrational and outside the Court's power, making the proceeding an abuse of the Court's process. The court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction over the decisions of the Registrar and dismissed the application for judicial review. The court concluded that the relief Spain sought was beyond the Court's jurisdiction and that any proceeding seeking such relief would represent a fundamental waste of judicial resources.

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review and noted that the application was an abuse of process and foredoomed to fail. The court further ordered that the application be dismissed with no orders for costs.

Orders