Thompson v Kane (No. 3)

[2012] FCA 1179

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Thompson v Kane (No. 3) [2012] FCA 1179

Citation:	Thompson v Kane (No. 3) [2012] FCA 1179
Parties:	PETER JAMES THOMPSON v TERESA KANE and FEDERAL MAGISTRATE SPELLEKEN
File number:	QUD 206 of 2012
Judge:	GREENWOOD J
Date of judgment:	26 October 2012
Date of Publication of Reasons:	26 October 2012
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – review of the principal proceeding consequent upon a request by the applicant to list the matter for mention
Legislation:	Federal Court Rules 2011, r 13.01(a)
Cases cited:	Thompson v Kane [2012] FCA 674 – cited Thompson v Kane (No. 2) [2012] FCA 763 - cited
Date of hearing:	26 October 2012
Date of last submissions:	26 October 2012
Place:	Brisbane
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	15
Counsel for the Applicant:	The applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondents:	Mr M Hanson
Solicitor for the Respondents:	Australian Government Solicitor

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	QUD 206 of 2012

BETWEEN:

PETER JAMES THOMPSON
Applicant

AND:

TERESA KANE
First Respondent

FEDERAL MAGISTRATE SPELLEKEN
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	GREENWOOD J
DATE OF ORDER:	26 OCTOBER 2012
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE

THE COURT DIRECTS THAT:

1.The principal application listed for mention today at the request of the applicant made on 17 October 2012 is adjourned generally pending the determination of the sequence of appeals before the Family Court of Australia to which Mr Thompson is a party. 

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 206 of 2012

BETWEEN:

PETER JAMES THOMPSON
Applicant

AND:

TERESA KANE
First Respondent

FEDERAL MAGISTRATE SPELLEKEN
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	GREENWOOD J
DATE:	26 OCTOBER 2012
PLACE:	BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 8 May 2012, Mr Thompson made an interlocutory application by which he sought an order of this Court staying the operation of a final order of the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia made on 1 November 2011. By operation of the existing stay order made by that Court, the final order was stayed pending the determination of a sequence of appeals to the Family Court of Australia which were then, and remain, on foot. The interlocutory application was made in Mr Thompson’s principal application in which he seeks a range of relief in reliance upon s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) and the Administrative Decision (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth). 

2. The terms of the existing stay order made it clear that the final order was stayed until earlier order with the result that any discharge of the existing stay order would be subject to further judicial consideration. 

3. Mr Thompson made the interlocutory application before this Court on the footing that he was concerned that the stay order made in the Federal Magistrates Court might, for one reason or another, be discharged and he contended that this Court has jurisdiction in relation to such an application under provisions of each of the above two Commonwealth Acts. 

4. Since there was no utility in making any further stay order (apart from any other question concerning competency of the application), the interlocutory application was dismissed. 

5. As to the principal application, apart from any question in relation to the interlocutory application, a Notice of Objection to competency had been filed.  That matter was not being pressed on the hearing of the interlocutory application. 

6. At [10] of the reasons for judgment dismissing the interlocutory application (Thompson v Kane [2012] FCA 674), the Court observed that in principle the primary application ought not to be listed for further determination until the determination of the various appeals. The Court also observed that “should either of the parties wish to list the matter for any reason, the matter will be listed upon request”.

7. On 16 July 2012, the Court made further orders in relation to the principal application and adjourned an interlocutory application made by the Commonwealth of Australia as third respondent in the proceeding to set aside the originating application under rule 13.01(a) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 on the ground that no decision under challenge was susceptible of review under either the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) or the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth).

8. That application was adjourned to enable Mr Thompson to seek legal advice from counsel to whom Mr Thompson was referred by the Court from the pro bono list.  Reasons for judgment in relation to the orders made on 16 July 2012 were published the following day:  Thompson v Kane (No. 2) [2012] FCA 763.

9. Those reasons also dealt with an application by Mr Thompson for assistance from Mr Ian Bruce Bell.  That request was refused. 

10. Mr Thompson has now written to the Court on 17 October 2012 requesting that the proceeding be listed, in effect, under the indication of the Court at [10] of the reasons given on 8 May 2012 in Thompson v Kane [2012] FCA 674.

11. In the letter, Mr Thompson says that he has pending appeals in the Family Court of Australia (NA95/2011; NA32/2011; NA33/2011; and NA25/2011).  He says that these pending appeals are imposing an onerous workload upon him and that the appeals pending in the Family Court ought not to proceed until the resolutions of the proceedings before the Federal Court of Australia.  Mr Thompson says that if the appeals are proceeded with “without me yet obtaining any subpoenii in lieu of any Discovery by the other side and a number of other improprieties in the matter as it sits below are not resolved before hearing of the above listed appeals, then that would necessitate me coming back to this court with substantially expanded pleas”. 

12. Mr Thompson contends in his letter that the Federal Court has jurisdiction over the Federal Magistrates Court in respect of its jurisdiction in family law matters and that the principal application should either proceed or be “sent up to the High Court in relation to placida 75(v) of the Constitution” or alternatively “[a]n arrangement be negotiated to adjourn the several related appeals before the Family Court on appeal currently set down for hearing on 7 November 2012, until the resolution of this case”. 

13. Mr Thompson appeals from the relevant orders of the Federal Magistrates Court on a number of grounds which include questions about interlocutory orders concerning access to documents and matters which he describes as a range of improprieties. 

14. There is no basis for presently proceeding with the principal application and certainly no basis upon which this Court can or ought to intervene in the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction of the Family Court of Australia.  All of the matters that Mr Thompson wants to agitate can, and no doubt are, being agitated as grounds of appeal in the four appeals earlier described.  If Mr Thompson is suffering difficulty in the preparation of the appeals before the Family Court, he can and no doubt will, raise that difficulty with that Court in an appropriate way. 

15. Accordingly, I direct that Mr Thompson’s principal application listed for mention today at his request be adjourned generally pending the determination of the sequence of appeals listed before the Family Court of Australia.  The next step, upon a resolution of those appeals, will involve so far as the principal proceeding in this Court is concerned, the re‑listing of the interlocutory application by the Commonwealth seeking orders for the striking out of the principal proceeding.  That application ought not to be listed until the appeals before the Family Court are resolved. 

I certify that the preceding fifteen (15) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Greenwood.

Associate:

Dated:       26 October 2012