ZDTV v Administrative Review Tribunal

Link copied
Case Copied 46 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ZDTV v Administrative Review Tribunal [2025] FCA 1150

File number(s): NSD 91 of 2025
Judgment of: SHARIFF J
Date of judgment: 18 September 2025
Catchwords:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – application for judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Review Tribunal (the ART) – where the ART decided that it did not have jurisdiction to conduct “second reviews” of two decisions made by the second respondent in 2012 and 2014 where those decisions had already been the subject of previous reviews – whether the ART’s decision is affected by error – no error established – application dismissed

HIGH COURT AND FEDERAL COURT – application for vexatious proceedings orders under s 37AO of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – whether the applicant has frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings in Australian courts or tribunals – where the applicant regularly includes scandalous allegations in the materials provided to the Court – vexatious proceedings orders made
Legislation:

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (repealed) 42A

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) s 18

Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) ss 131C, 131D

Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) ss 20, 46PF, 46PH, 46PO

Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 ss 92, 95N

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 31A, 37AM, 37AO, 37AQ, 37AR

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 78B

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) (repealed) r 13.03C

Federal Court Rules 1979 (Cth) (repealed) o 21, r 1

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 26.01(a), 26.01(d)
Cases cited:

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v CG Berbatis Holdings Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1151; 95 FCR 292

AZO24 v Commonwealth of Australia [2025] FCAFC 77

CMW22 v Administrative Appeals Tribunal [2023] FCA 262

Cull v Singh [2024] FCA 258

Dixon v Administrative Appeals Tribunal [2022] FedCFamC2G 767

Ezekiel-Hart v Council of the Law Society of ACT (Vexatious Proceedings Order) [2025] FCA 551

Ferdinands v Registrar Burns (Vexatious Proceedings Order) [2024] FCAFC 157

HWY Rent Pty Ltd v HWY Rentals (in liq) (No 2) [2014] FCA 449

Kioa v West [1985] HCA 81; 159 CLR 550

Luck v Secretary, Department of Human Services [2017] FCA 540

Luck v Secretary, Services Australia (Vexatious Proceedings Order) [2025] FCAFC 103

McGinn v High Court of Australia (No 5) [2025] FCA 975

Nasir v Reynolds (Vexatious Proceedings Order) [2024] FCA 1194

Ogbonna v CTI Logistics Limited (No 6) [2022] FCA 615

Patrick & Patterson & Anor [2013] FCCA 785

Preece and Child Support Registrar (Child support) [2022] AATA 3098

Preece and Child Support Registrar (Child support) [2022] AATA 5230

Pryor v Pearce (No 2) [2015] FCCA 2965

Pryor v Pearce [2015] FCCA 1240

Przybylowski v Australian Human Rights Commission (No 2) [2018] FCA 473

Przybylowski v Australian Human Rights Commission (No 2) [2018] FCA 473 at [30]

Przybylowski v Australian Human Rights Commission [2021] FCA 1398

Przybylowski v Australian Human Rights Commission [2022] FCA 1249

Przybylowski v Australian Human Rights Commission [2022] FedCFamC2G 1072

Przybylowski…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read ZDTV v Administrative Review Tribunal and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2025] FCA 1150
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court was asked to review a decision made by the Administrative Review Tribunal (the ART) which had determined that it did not have jurisdiction to conduct a "second review" of two decisions made by the second respondent in 2012 and 2014. The applicant had already had the decisions reviewed by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (the SSAT), and sought a further review by the ART. The High Court was also asked to consider whether the applicant had frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings in Australian courts or tribunals, where the applicant regularly included scandalous allegations in the materials provided to the Court. The court was required to decide whether the ART’s decision to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction was correct, and whether the applicant's conduct warranted orders under s 37AO of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) to prevent vexatious proceedings.

The High Court found that the ART’s decision to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction was correct. The court held that the ART had no jurisdiction to conduct a second review of the decisions, as they had already been reviewed by the SSAT. The court also found that the applicant's conduct warranted orders under s 37AO of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). The court held that the applicant had frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings in Australian courts or tribunals, and regularly included scandalous allegations in the materials provided to the Court. The court found that the applicant's conduct was vexatious and oppressive, and that orders should be made to prevent the applicant from instituting or continuing proceedings without leave.

The High Court dismissed the application for judicial review and made orders under s 37AO of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) to prevent the applicant from instituting or continuing proceedings without leave. The court also ordered that the applicant pay the respondents' costs of the proceedings. The court found that the ART’s decision to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction was correct, and that the applicant's conduct warranted orders to prevent vexatious proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The proceedings be dismissed.

2. Pursuant to s 37AO(2)(a) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (the FCA Act):

(a) all current proceedings instituted by the applicant in the Court be stayed; and

(b) the applicant be prohibited from continuing any current proceedings in this Court without making an application for leave to continue and obtaining leave.

3. Pursuant to s 37AO(2)(b) of the FCA Act, the applicant be prohibited from instituting proceedings in this Court without making an application for leave to institute proceedings in accordance with s 37AR of the FCA Act and obtaining leave in accordance with s 37AT of the FCA Act.

4. The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the proceedings, as agreed or taxed.

5. The publication or dissemination of any list or account of any designated review proceedings identified in ZDTV v Administrative Review Tribunal [2025] FCA 1150 be approved.

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

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied that the application for judicial review should be dismissed. As I have concluded that the application for judicial review should be dismissed, it is not necessary to determine the second respondent’s application for summary dismissal as the proceedings are to be dismissed in any event. However, I am satisfied that orders that the second respondent seeks under s 37AO of the FCA Act should be made. To explain why I have reached these conclusions, it is first necessary to examine the 2025 ART Decision before addressing why the applicant’s challenges to that Decision should be dismissed and why orders should be made under s 37AO of the FCA Act. 2. THE 2025 ART DECISION On 6 October 2024 and 17 October 2024, the applicant lodged applications with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT) for a review of certain decisions relating to the registration of the 2006 Maintenance Orders. Those decisions were made by the predecessor to the second respondent on 7 June 2012 and 10 January 2014. These decisions had been reviewed by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (the SSAT) on 6 February 2013 and 27 August 2014. Despite the fact that these decisions had already been reviewed by the SSAT, the applications made by the applicant in October 2024 sought an extension of time to seek to review these decisions again. In essence, in his application to the AAT, the applicant submitted that there was:(a)new evidence he had received from the “Polish Social Institution” on 28 November 2024 that indicated that he had no debt to his former wife and that she had committed a crime by seeking the registration of an apparent debt of child maintenance; and(b)further new evidence from the Republic of Poland that it did not “intermediate” or request a new application of spousal maintenance in 2013 – 2014 such that the registration in Australia of the 2006 Maintenance Orders was fraudulent and a crime. On 14 October 2024, all applications before the AAT were transferred to the ART. On 16 January 2025, a Senior Member of the ART conducted a hearing in relation to the preliminary issue as to whether the ART had jurisdiction to review the relevant decisions. The applicant had the opportunity to make both oral and written submissions to the ART about this question of jurisdiction, and had the opportunity to respond to the second respondent’s submissions as to this point. The applicant submitted to the ART that the decisions to register the 2006 Maintenance Orders were fraudulent and they should not have been registered by the second respondent. In oral submissions before the ART, the applicant acknowledged that the relevant decisions to register the 2006 Maintenance Orders had been reviewed by the SSAT and further acknowledged that the decision of the SSAT of 27 August 2014 had been the subject of an application to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (FCC) (as it was then known) on 15 February 2015. Despite acknowledging these matters, the applicant submitted that the decisions made by the SSAT remained reviewable by the ART on the basis that a fraud had occurred.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.