Storry v Parkyn

The case of Storry v Parkyn involved Ms Venetia Louise Storry, who sought judicial review of a Registrar's decision to refuse to accept documents for filing. The Registrar had formed the view that the documents were frivolous or vexatious and amounted to an abuse of process. The case was heard before Rangiah J, who dismissed the application for judicial review. Ms Storry then sought to set aside the judgment refusing her application for leave to appeal on the basis of alleged fraud. The court had to decide whether the narrow and historically distinct power in equity to set aside a judgment obtained at law operated to void the decree obtained by fraud and whether the Registrar's decision was attended by legal error.

The court found that the narrow and historically distinct power in Chancery to set aside a judgment obtained at law did not operate to void the decree obtained by fraud. The power in equity survived the procedural fusion of law and equity and applied to perfected common law judgments. However, the court concluded that Ms Storry had failed to demonstrate any legal error by the Registrar in making the assessment that the documents were frivolous or vexatious and in refusing to accept the documents for filing. The proposed originating application had no reasonable prospects of success.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. The court also ordered that Ms Storry be prohibited from instituting proceedings in the court without making an application for leave to institute proceedings in accordance with section 37AR of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). The court further ordered that any oral hearing in relation to the making of a vexatious proceedings order be listed for hearing by the Full Court on a date to be fixed following 28 June 2024. Finally, the court dismissed the originating application for judicial review dated 31 January 2024.