Bailiff v The Honourable Anthony Murray Gleeson [2001] FCA 344

Bailiff v The Honourable Anthony Murray Gleeson [2001] FCA 344

Although Madgwick J was named as an intended respondent and would normally be disqualified, the principle of necessity required a judge to decide whether the documents should be accepted or rejected insofar as they affected respondents other than himself. The proposed application did not comply with O 4, disclosed no cognisable final relief or jurisdictional basis, was not accompanied by the required affidavit, and on its face was an abuse of process, frivolous and vexatious because it disclosed no comprehensible or legally justiciable basis for culpability against the intended respondents and would be bound to fail.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 February 2001
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure; Direction to Registrar Under O 46 R 7 a of the Federal Court Rules Concerning Documents Presented for Filing / Pre Filing Direction to District Registrar
Outcome
The District Registrar was directed to refuse to accept or issue the documents insofar as they would affect intended respondents other than Rodney Neville Madgwick, and to seek the direction of another Judge insofar as they related to Rodney Neville Madgwick.
Legal Topics
['orders Restraining Initiation of Proceedings' 'abuse of Process' 'frivolous or Vexatious Documents' 'filing Requirements for Originating Process' 'reasonable Apprehension of Bias' 'judicial Disqualification' 'principle of Necessity']
['practice and Procedure' 'courts and Judges'] ['orders Restraining Initiation of Proceedings' 'abuse of Process' 'frivolous or Vexatious Documents' 'filing Requirements for Originating Process' 'reasonable Apprehension of Bias' 'judicial Disqualification' 'principle of Necessity']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Practice and Procedure; Direction to Registrar Under O 46 R 7 a of the Federal Court Rules Concerning Documents Presented for Filing / Pre Filing Direction to District Registrar

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Madgwick J should disqualify himself because he was named as an intended respondent in the proposed application.' 'Whether the principle of necessity permitted a judge of the Court to determine whether the documents should be accepted or rejected for filing where all judges of the Court were named.' 'Whether the documents presented to the Registry should be refused under O 46 r 7A because they appeared on their face to be an abuse of process, frivolous or vexatious.' 'Whether the proposed application complied with the form and content requirements of O 4 of the Federal Court Rules.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although Madgwick J was named as an intended respondent and would normally be disqualified, the principle of necessity required a judge to decide whether the documents should be accepted or rejected insofar as they affected respondents other than himself. The proposed application did not comply with O 4, disclosed no cognisable final relief or jurisdictional basis, was not accompanied by the required affidavit, and on its face was an abuse of process, frivolous and vexatious because it disclosed no comprehensible or legally justiciable basis for culpability against the intended respondents and would be bound to fail.

Court Disposition

The District Registrar was directed to refuse to accept or issue the documents insofar as they would affect intended respondents other than Rodney Neville Madgwick, and to seek the direction of another Judge insofar as they related to Rodney Neville Madgwick.

Orders

  • ['The District Registrar is to refuse to accept or issue the documents presented on behalf of the intended applicants insofar as they would, if accepted, affect intended Respondents other than Rodney Neville Madgwick.' 'The District Registrar is to seek the direction of another Judge of this Court insofar as it...