Federal Court declines to rule on whether s 27(2) of Bankruptcy Act applied
The Federal Court will weigh whether to issue a vexatious proceedings order against an applicant attempting to sue the inspector-general in bankruptcy, the official trustee in bankruptcy, the official receiver, the Australian Financial Security Authority (AFSA), and the AFSA’s Sydney office head.
At the Federal Court’s registry, the applicant in Mahmoud v Duty Registrar of the Federal Court of Australia [2026] FCA 985 submitted an application and affidavit on 27 November 2025. He requested declaratory relief concerning:
Meanwhile, the affidavit started with a 21-page section with the heading of “The Crimes Committed.”
On 3 December 2025, the Federal Court’s duty registrar determined that the documents should be rejected for filing.
The duty registrar found that s 11(3) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (ADJR Act) required the applicant to lodge the application within 28 days of 3 December 2025, or by 31 December 2025.
The duty registrar found that the Federal Court lacked the jurisdiction to hear and determine the criminal offences apparently alleged in the documents, pursuant to s 27(2) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966.
On 27 May 2026, the applicant applied for an extension of time under r 31.02 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) to lodge an application for an order for review under s 11(1)(c) of the ADJR Act.
The applicant acknowledged that he sought declarations regarding the commission of criminal offences. However, he asserted that:
To explain the delay, the applicant claimed that he:
The Federal Court of Australia refused the application for an extension of time.
Requiring the applicant to file any affidavits and written submissions by 27 August 2026 on whether the court should issue a vexatious proceedings order against him, the court listed the matter for hearing on 2 September 2026 to determine whether to make such an order.
Even assuming it had jurisdiction over the matter, the court said it did not need to address whether s 27(2) of the Bankruptcy Act applied in the circumstances because it could resolve the matter on discretionary grounds.
The Federal Court noted that the applicant filed the extension application nearly five months late. The court held that the applicant’s explanations, some of which lacked detail, did not justify the length of delay in filing the extension application or any delay beyond the 31 December 2025 deadline.
On 24 September 2015, Judge Rothman of the New South Wales Supreme Court issued a vexatious proceedings order under s 8 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW).
In 2017, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales partly allowed an appeal, varied the order prohibiting the applicant from instituting proceedings in the state without leave of an appropriate court, such that the order would not apply to the applicant commencing proceedings in criminal proceedings initiated against him as an accused or seeking a writ of habeas corpus.
Given these prior proceedings, the Federal Court refrained from formally dismissing the present application because it wanted to consider whether to take the initiative to make a vexatious proceedings order against the applicant without hearing him or giving him an opportunity to be heard under s 37AO of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).
Enjoy this story? Read the latest litigation and dispute resolution news on the main page!
