Manolakis v Costello [2008] FCA 1616

Manolakis v Costello [2008] FCA 1616

Whether the decision under review was treated as the Registrar's conduct or the Judge's direction, the application failed because the substantive application and affidavit were unsupported, difficult to comprehend, outrageous in large part, sought relief in matters for which Federal Court jurisdiction was not adequately explained, and were correctly characterised as an abuse of process or frivolous or vexatious, with no error of law or fact in that conclusion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Application for an Order of Review Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) / Judgment on Application for Order of Review
Outcome
The application for an order of review was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['refusal to Accept Document for Filing' 'abuse of Process' 'frivolous or Vexatious Documents' "review of Registrar's Decision or Judge's Direction" 'federal Court Jurisdiction']
['administrative Law' 'federal Court Procedure' 'judicial Review'] ['refusal to Accept Document for Filing' 'abuse of Process' 'frivolous or Vexatious Documents' "review of Registrar's Decision or Judge's Direction" 'federal Court Jurisdiction']

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

Application for an Order of Review Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) / Judgment on Application for Order of Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the District Registrar's refusal to accept the applicant's documents for filing, or the Acting Chief Justice's direction under O 46 r 7A, should be set aside on review." 'Whether the substantive application and supporting affidavit were an abuse of process or frivolous or vexatious.' 'Whether this Court had jurisdiction to provide relief in relation to conduct of criminal proceedings in the state courts.']

Ratio Decidendi

Whether the decision under review was treated as the Registrar's conduct or the Judge's direction, the application failed because the substantive application and affidavit were unsupported, difficult to comprehend, outrageous in large part, sought relief in matters for which Federal Court jurisdiction was not adequately explained, and were correctly characterised as an abuse of process or frivolous or vexatious, with no error of law or fact in that conclusion.

Court Disposition

The application for an order of review was dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application for an order of review be dismissed.']