No substantive judgment on case merits when registrar refuses an application: court
The Federal Court has emphasized in a recent case that the court registrar is empowered to refuse applications for filing which are, on its face, an abuse of process, frivolous, and vexatious.
In Ferdinands v Allaway, National Duty Registrar, Federal Court deputy district registrar Phillip Allaway had refused to accept for filing a proposed originating application and supporting documents filed by Trevor Ferdinands on the ground that it was an abuse of court process, frivolous, or vexatious.
Ferdinand’s application named the Prime Minister as respondent. Following the registrar’s refusal to accept the application, Ferdinands filed several more applications which were, likewise, rejected. Ferdinands elevated the matter to the Federal Court, challenging the registrar’s refusal.
Scope of Registrar’s power
The Federal Court noted that the Federal Court Rules (FCR) grants the registrar the power to maintain efficient operation of the registry and the court. The registrar has the power and duty to protect court procedures from abuse by refusing to accept a document for filing which, on its face, is an abuse of court process, frivolous, or vexatious.
The court, citing case authorities, emphasized that it is in the interests of the administration of justice that there be procedural requirements to be met before an application could be brought before a judge. Further, case law also said that the registrar does not have the power to adjudicate under the substantive law whether an application that a party seeks to bring is an abuse of process. Rather, all documents filed in the registry must not, in their form and content, be an abuse of the process of the court, frivolous, or vexatious.
Abuse of process, frivolous, and vexatious
The originating application and supporting documents which the registrar had refused to accept for filing is an application for judicial review. The application stated that Ferdinands had been aggrieved by the Prime Minister’s decision, but no decision was identified. Further, Ferdinands had set out 93 grounds for the application and sought 25 orders from the court.
The court observed that the registrar did not make a substantive judgment about the underlying merit of the claims in the proposed proceedings when he refused to accept the originating application. The registrar made it clear in his letter to the applicant that he refused to accept the documents for filing because they are an abuse of the process of the Court, frivolous and vexatious. The court pointed out that the registrar was not making a substantive judgment about the underlying merit of the claims in the proposed proceedings but was ensuring compliance with procedural requirements.
The court said, a proceeding will be frivolous and vexatious if it is based on a cause of action which no reasonable person could properly treat as bona fide. The court ultimately found that the registrar did not commit any error in characterizing the proposed proceedings as being on their face, an abuse of the process of the Court, frivolous and vexatious.
