Kitoko v Registrar, Registry of New South Wales, Federal Court of Australia [2023] FCA 1056

Kitoko v Registrar, Registry of New South Wales, Federal Court of Australia [2023] FCA 1056

The Registrar's refusal to accept the applicant's documents for filing was lawful because the proposed interlocutory application sought to challenge, in this Court, decisions of a judge of this Court exercising appellate jurisdiction, after that appellate jurisdiction had been exhausted. That was an abuse of process within r 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). The applicant's reliance on rr 39.02 and 39.04 was misconceived, authorities concerning r 36.16 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) did not assist, no relevant r 39.05 basis was alleged, and the remaining ADJR grounds lacked merit.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 September 2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review of a Registrar's Decision to Refuse to Accept Documents for Filing Under R 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) / Determined on the Papers; Originating Application Dismissed
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'federal Court Procedure' 'refusal to Accept Documents for Filing' 'abuse of Process' 'appellate Jurisdiction Exhausted']
['administrative Law'] ['judicial Review' 'federal Court Procedure' 'refusal to Accept Documents for Filing' 'abuse of Process' 'appellate Jurisdiction Exhausted']

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

Application for Judicial Review of a Registrar's Decision to Refuse to Accept Documents for Filing Under R 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) / Determined on the Papers; Originating Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Registrar's refusal to accept the applicant's documents for filing under r 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) was an improper exercise of power or otherwise susceptible to relief under s 5 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth)." "Whether the applicant's proposed interlocutory application was an abuse of process because it sought to challenge in this Court a decision of a judge of this Court exercising appellate jurisdiction." 'Whether rr 39.02 or 39.04 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), or authorities concerning r 36.16 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), assisted the applicant to set aside or vary entered orders.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Registrar's refusal to accept the applicant's documents for filing was lawful because the proposed interlocutory application sought to challenge, in this Court, decisions of a judge of this Court exercising appellate jurisdiction, after that appellate jurisdiction had been exhausted. That was an abuse of process within r 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). The applicant's reliance on rr 39.02 and 39.04 was misconceived, authorities concerning r 36.16 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) did not assist, no relevant r 39.05 basis was alleged, and the remaining ADJR grounds lacked merit.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ["The applicant's originating application for judicial review be dismissed."]