Storry v Parkyn

[2023] FCA 1141

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Storry v Parkyn [2023] FCA 1141

Review of:

Registrar's decision of Federal Court of Australia

File number:

QUD 364 of 2023

Judgment of:

RANGIAH J

Date of judgment:

21 September 2023

Catchwords:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – application for judicial review of a Registrar’s decision to refuse to accept documents for filing – application dismissed 

Legislation:

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) s 5

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 35A(5)

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 2.26 and 39.05

Cases cited:

Clone Pty Ltd v Players Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2018] HCA 12; (2018) 264 CLR 165

Nyoni v Murphy [2018] FCAFC 75

Spalla v St George Motor Finance Ltd (No 5) [2004] FCA 1262

Storry v Business Licensing Authority [2023] FCA 964

Storry v Business Licensing Authority (No 2) [2023] FCA 102

Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378; [1993] HCA 77

Division:

General Division

Registry:

Queensland

National Practice Area:

Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights

Number of paragraphs:

16

Date of hearing:

21 September 2023

Counsel for the Applicant:

The Applicant was self-represented

Counsel for the Respondent:

The Respondent filed a submitting notice

ORDERS

QUD 364 of 2023

BETWEEN:

VENETIA LOUISE STORRY

Applicant

AND:

NIC PARKYN

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	RANGIAH J
DATE OF ORDER:	21 SEPTEMBER 2023

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The originating application be dismissed.

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(DELIVERED EX TEMPORE AND REVISED FROM TRANSCRIPT)

RANGIAH J:

1. On 17 August 2023, the applicant lodged a proposed originating application and affidavit with the Court’s registry for filing. 

2. The respondent, a Registrar of the Court, made a decision under r 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) to refuse to accept the applicant’s documents for filing.

3. The applicant has now filed an originating application seeking review of the Registrar’s decision. 

4. The Registrar has filed a submitting appearance and, consequently, there is no contradictor.

5. The applicant seeks review of the Registrar’s decision pursuant to s 35A(5) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (the Rules). There is clear authority that a Registrar’s decision under r 2.26 of the Rules is not reviewable under s 35A(5) of the Act: Nyoni v Murphy [2018] FCAFC 75 at [37]. However, a decision under r 2.26 is amenable to review under s 5 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (the ADJR Act): Nyoni at [41]. I will treat the applicant as having sought judicial review of the Registrar’s decision under s 5 of the ADJR Act.

6. The reasons given by the Registrar state, relevantly:

   I am satisfied having considered the content of the documents that the documents are on their face frivolous or vexatious.  In circumstances where the court made orders on 15 August 2023 refusing your application for leave to appeal, it would constitute an abuse of process of the Court if a further originating process and affidavit…