Bailiff v Australian Capital Territory Police [2001] FCA 425

Bailiff v Australian Capital Territory Police [2001] FCA 425

The proposed applications were an appropriate case for a direction under O 46 r 7A(b), for the reasons given by Madgwick J in Bailiff v The Honourable Anthony Murray Gleeson [2001] FCA 344, and the District Registrar should refuse to accept or issue the documents presented on behalf of the intended applicants. The requested adjournment and the asserted need to consider other applications did not justify delaying or preventing that direction.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Direction Under O 46 R 7 a of the Federal Court Rules Concerning Proposed Applications Presented to the Registry / Before Acceptance or Issue of Proposed Originating Documents
Outcome
The District Registrar was directed to refuse to accept or issue the documents presented on behalf of the intended applicants.
Legal Topics
['abuse of Process' 'frivolous or Vexatious Proceedings' 'registry Refusal to Accept or Issue Documents' 'federal Court Rules O 46 R 7 A']
['civil Procedure'] ['abuse of Process' 'frivolous or Vexatious Proceedings' 'registry Refusal to Accept or Issue Documents' 'federal Court Rules O 46 R 7 A']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Direction Under O 46 R 7 a of the Federal Court Rules Concerning Proposed Applications Presented to the Registry / Before Acceptance or Issue of Proposed Originating Documents

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed applications appeared on their face to be an abuse of the process of the Court or to be frivolous or vexatious under O 46 r 7A of the Federal Court Rules.' 'Whether the District Registrar should be directed to accept or issue, or to refuse to accept or issue, the proposed applications.' 'Whether the hearing should be adjourned because Mr Bailiff said he had insufficient time to prepare submissions due to his other Federal Court applications.' 'Whether the three applications could be considered without considering two other applications described by Mr Bailiff as part of the "Tuesday family".']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed applications were an appropriate case for a direction under O 46 r 7A(b), for the reasons given by Madgwick J in Bailiff v The Honourable Anthony Murray Gleeson [2001] FCA 344, and the District Registrar should refuse to accept or issue the documents presented on behalf of the intended applicants. The requested adjournment and the asserted need to consider other applications did not justify delaying or preventing that direction.

Court Disposition

The District Registrar was directed to refuse to accept or issue the documents presented on behalf of the intended applicants.

Orders

  • ['The District Registrar is to refuse to accept or issue the documents presented on behalf of the intended applicants.']