Bizuneh v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

1. Each of the applications is dismissed. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

O'CALLAGHAN J: 1 I have before me ten separate applications which purport to be, or which in any event I take in the applicant's favour to constitute, applications for judicial review of ten separate decisions made by a Judicial Registrar of this court (the Registrar) to refuse to accept certain documents for filing pursuant to r 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (the Rules). 2 At various dates between July and November 2019, the applicant attempted to file a number of lengthy and incomprehensible documents with the court alleging a vast array of allegations against many different people and corporations, and claiming damages in respect of a series of obscure grievances totalling many millions of dollars. 3 By way of example only, in the applications before the court, the claims the subject of the rejected documents were set out as follows. (Parts of the extracts quoted are redacted because they involve baseless and scandalous allegations against persons who have had no opportunity to be heard.) In proceeding TAD 44 of 2019: The Litigant . . . being the 'Aggrieved Party' (Jon WHEATON) seeks Financial and Economic Damages exceeding $6,000,000-00 OR as may be better determined by this Jurisdiction, together with Custodial Sentences for the Principal Protagonists and Co-Defendants in accord with the Criminal Code Tasmania (1924) as amended and incorporated into and the Commonwealth of Australia Crimes Act (1995), as have since September of 2017 and February - March of 2018 particularly as has arisen from the illegitimate + Illicit + illegal behaviours and manipulations by Messrs XXXX and XXXX Solicitors (Hobart) and Messrs XXXX & XXXX being Trustee/s in Bankruptcy (Hobart) (Emphasis in original.) In proceeding TAD 2 of 2020: RE-STATEMENT AND RE-ENDORSEMENT OF THE LITIGANTS CLAIMS: ON August 05 2019, September 09 2019 and October 07 2019 . . . AND being the 5TH / 6TH Replies by Ms. XXXX (assisted by this Applicant), to 'HIS - the Principal Defendant XXXX's' numerous Letters and and DEMANDS culmination in Litigation commenced by XXXX on 10 September 2019 BUT NOT SERVED unbtil or about ealy October of 2019 . . . . those 'Requests-DEMANDS being since April 2019', and the Defendant XXXX has had the 'GALL', the TEMERITY' and the 'CHUTZPATH' to DEMAND . . . . the following ORDERS via Litigation in Matter LNC 658 of 2019 Filed 10 September 2019 being the same day that 'HE - XXXX himself' and XXXX (hereinafter referred to as XXXX, and who was recently deceased 25 November 2019 being the simultaneous date that this Indictment was originally Filed in the FCA Registry in Hobart via the eLodgment Process) . . . received Ms XXXX's Signed (REPEATED and Authorised) Letters of 09 September 2019 . . . . (and subsequently REPEATED 07 October 2019) as XXXX failed ( illegitimately, illegally and illicitly ) to respond to the 09 September 2019 Letter. (Emphasis and errors in original.) In proceeding TAD 5 of 2020: Details, STATEMENT and ENDORSEMENT of the eight (8) Claim/s: … (i) These Claims are for financial and economic Damages against the Defendants and are made against both their individual, collective and their combined 'Unconscionable Conduct' suffered upon 'the Plaintiff-Applicant' following the significant and substantial assistance he had given and provided to aid the Principal Defendant - XXXX (formerly XXXX) to consummate and finalise 'THE BEST ALTERNATIVE . . . from some six (6) alternative Real Estate Transactions' that 'the Parties' . . . . XXXX and 'the Plaintiff-Applicant', were considering in appropriate detail, (with input and assessment from and by 'the Parties', each providing detailed and proper diligence and consideration of the ALTERNATIVES). 'The Parties' having S-O-L-D their respective Residences in XXXX and nearby XXXX near HOBART, jointly determined to relocate XXXX's Capital Assets from XXXX to XXXX ( OR other of the NEARBY alternatives), some 300klms to the North-West of Tasmania, _____________ and for 'the Parties' (XXXX and this Plaintiff-Applicant), to simply contemplate their intended Semi-Retirements in the manor to which they had become accustomed at any of the following residential alternatives:- The Sale and Re-Sale of: XXXX . . . (twice!!) The Proposed Purchase of: XXXX The Proposed Purchase of: XXXX The Proposed Purchase of: XXXX The Proposed Purchase of: XXXX The Proposed Purchase of: XXXX and others! (ii) 'The Parties' had both suffered substantial individual and combined economic and financial Losses from their combined search of a new Home / Shared Residential Dwelling, _________________ AND none moreso than that which has been suffered upon 'the Plaintiff-Applicant' subsequently AND maliciously by the Defendants, (AND particularly by XXXX herself, XXXX and XXXX), AND they ought not to have done that which they have done . . . such as, and being substantial financial and economic Losses and Damages of which $2,466,500.00 is now hereby Claimed against the three (3) Defendants. less a $8,500-00 Credit / Loan Repayment to XXXX / Defendant 1 = a Net Claim of $2,458,500-00 (Emphasis in original.) 4 The Registrar refused to accept the documents because she was satisfied that each of them was an abuse of the process of the court or was frivolous or vexatious under r 2.26 of the Rules, among other things. 5 On 28 August 2019 the Registrar wrote to the applicant in these terms (omitting formal parts): I refer to the documents that you have lodged with the Federal Court of Australia, Tasmania Registry between 24 July and 23 August 2019. Rule 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Rules) provides that a Registrar may refuse to accept a document (including a document that would, if accepted, become an originating application) if the Registrar is satisfied that the document is an abuse of the process of the Court or is frivolous or vexatious: (a) on the face of the document; or (b) by reference to any documents already filed or submitted for filing with the document. Pursuant to rule 2.26, I have refused to accept your documents for filing. My reasons are set out below. 1. Documents lodged on 24 July 2019 re XXXX and XXXX I refer to the document lodged on 24 July 2019, titled 'Originating Application - Writ (Further Ammended) (sic)' (XXXX Application), and the documents lodged with it. I have considered the XXXX Application and the documents lodged with it. Neither the XXXX Application nor the documents lodged with it identify any Commonwealth law or otherwise disclose a cause of action that could be heard by this Court. Accordingly, the Court does not have jurisdiction to grant the relief you seek. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the XXXX Application constitutes an abuse of the process of the Court. It is open to you to consider whether another forum may be appropriate to determine the matters raised in the XXXX Application. 2. Documents lodged on 2 August 2019 re XXXX and Others I refer to the document lodged on 2 August 2019 titled 'Originating Application (Further Revised and Amended' (XXXX Application), and the documents lodged with it. I have considered the XXXX Application and the documents lodged with it. Neither the XXXX Application nor the documents lodged with it identify any Commonwealth law or otherwise disclose a cause of action that could be heard by this Court. Accordingly, the Court has no jurisdiction to grant the relief you seek. Therefore, I am satisfied that the XXXX Application constitutes an abuse of the process of the Court. It is open to you to consider whether another forum may be appropriate to determine the matters raised in the XXXX Application. 3. Documents lodged on 7 August 2019 re XXXX and Others I refer to the document lodged on 7 August 2019, titled 'Draft Notice of Appeal (Further Revised and Ammended (sic))' (Draft Notice of Appeal), and the documents lodged with it. I have considered the Draft Notice of Appeal and the documents lodged with it. The Draft Notice of Appeal raises numerous issues. In particular, neither the decision(s) from which you seek to appeal by lodging these documents, nor the errors that are alleged to have been committed by the Court(s) below, are clearly identified. The Draft Notice of Appeal refers to various 'orders', 'determinations' and 'directives', in a range of matters including LNG62/2017, TAD37/2017 and TAD10/2018. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that the Draft Notice of Appeal constitutes an abuse of the process of the Court. 4. Documents lodged on 15 August 2019 re XXXX and Others I refer to the document lodged on 15 August 2019, titled 'Originating Application - Writ (Further Amended)' (XXXX Application), and the documents lodged with it. I have considered the XXXX Application and the documents lodged with it. Neither the XXXX Application nor the documents lodged with it identify any Commonwealth law or otherwise disclose a cause of action that could be heard by this Court. Accordingly, the Court has no jurisdiction to grant the relief you seek. Therefore, I am satisfied that the XXXX Application constitutes an abuse of the process of the Court. It is open to you to consider whether another forum may be appropriate to determine the matters raised in the XXXX Application. 5. Documents lodged on 22 August 2019 re XXXX and Others I refer to the document lodged on 22 August 2019, titled 'Originating Application - Writ (Ammended) (sic))' (XXXX Application), and the documents lodged with it. I have considered the XXXX Application and the documents lodged with it. Neither the XXXX Application nor the documents lodged with it identify any Commonwealth law or otherwise disclose a cause of action that could be heard by this Court. Accordingly, the Court has no jurisdiction to grant the relief you seek. Therefore, I am satisfied that the XXXX Application constitutes an abuse of the process of the Court. It is open to you to consider whether another forum may be appropriate to determine the matters raised in the XXXX Application. 6 On 22 October 2019 the Registrar wrote to the applicant in these terms (omitting formal parts): I refer to the documents that you have lodged with the Federal Court of Australia, Tasmania Registry between 27 August and 18 October 2019. Rule 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Rules) provides that a Registrar may refuse to accept a document (including a document that would, if accepted, become an originating application) if the Registrar is satisfied that the document is an abuse of the process of the Court or is frivolous or vexatious: (a) on the face of the document; or (b) by reference to any documents already filed or submitted for filing with the document. Pursuant to rule 2.26, I have refused to accept your documents for filing. My reasons are set out below. 1. Documents lodged on 27 August 2019 re XXXX and Others, XXXX I refer to the document lodged on 27 August 2019 titled 'Originating Application - Writ (Amended)' (XXXX Application) and the documents lodged with it. The document makes allegations against the named defendants in respect of the medical care provided to Ms XXXX. I have considered the XXXX Application and the documents lodged with it. Neither the XXXX Application nor the documents lodged with it identify any Commonwealth law or otherwise disclose a cause of action that could be heard by this Court. Accordingly, the Court has no jurisdiction to grant the relief you seek. Therefore, I am satisfied that the XXXX Application constitutes an abuse of the process of the Court. It is open to you to consider whether another forum may be appropriate to determine the matters raised in the XXXX Application. 2. Documents lodged on 17 September 2019 re XXXX and Others I refer to the document lodged on 17 September 2019 titled 'Originating Application (Modified from a Further Revised and Ammended (sic) version eLodged 02 August 2019)' (XXXX Application) and the documents lodged with it. The XXXX Application makes allegations against the named defendants with respect to: • breaches of agreements concerning the proposed purchase of properties and a vehicle; and • the remediation of one of the properties following a fire. I have considered the XXXX Application and the documents lodged with it. Neither the XXXX Application nor the documents lodged with it identify any Commonwealth law or otherwise disclose a cause of action that could be heard by this Court. Accordingly, the Court has no jurisdiction to grant the relief you seek. Therefore, I am satisfied that the XXXX Application constitutes an abuse of the process of the Court. It is open to you to consider whether another forum may be appropriate to determine the matters raised in the XXXX Application. 3. Documents lodged on 18 September 2019 re XXXX and Others I refer to the document lodged on 18 September 2019 titled 'Originating Application - Writ' (XXXX Application), and the documents lodged with it. The XXXX Application makes allegations against the named defendants in respect of professional misconduct. I have considered the XXXX Application and the documents lodged with it. Neither the XXXX Application nor the documents lodged with it identify any Commonwealth law or otherwise disclose a cause of action that could be heard by this Court. Accordingly, the Court has no jurisdiction to grant the relief you seek. Therefore, I am satisfied that the XXXX Application constitutes an abuse of the process of the Court. It is open to you to consider whether another forum may be appropriate to determine the matters raised in the XXXX Application. 4. Documents lodged on 15 October 2019 re XXXX and others I refer to the document lodged on 15 October 2019, titled 'General Form: Indictable Primary Proceedings' (XXXX Application) and the documents lodged with it. The XXXX Application seeks damages and custodial sentences for the named defendants (page 2). There are numerous issues with the XXXX Application. In particular, while there is a general reference to the Criminal Code Tasmania and the 'Commonwealth of Australia Crimes Act (1995)', neither the XXXX Application nor the documents lodged with it state with specificity the offence(s) and/or cause(s) of action relied on. In this regard, I note that the Federal Court has indictable jurisdiction only in respect of certain offences against the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. Accordingly, it is not evident that the Court has jurisdiction to grant the relief sought. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that these documents constitute an abuse of the process of the Court. 5. Documents lodged on 17 October 2019 re XXXX and XXXX I refer to the document lodged on 17 October 2019, titled 'Originating Application - Writ (Further Ammended - Revised) (sic)' (XXXX Application), and the documents lodged with it. The XXXX Application makes allegations against the named defendants in respect of professional misconduct. I have considered the XXXX Application and the documents lodged with it. Neither the XXXX Application nor the documents lodged with it identify any Commonwealth law or otherwise disclose a cause of action that could be heard by this Court. Accordingly, the Court does not have jurisdiction to grant the relief you seek. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the XXXX Application constitutes an abuse of the process of the Court. It is open to you to consider whether another forum may be appropriate to determine the matters raised in the XXXX Application. Further information regarding the jurisdiction of the Federal Court is available on the Court's website at . I encourage you to seek legal advice in relation to this letter and the preparation by you of any further documents for filing with the Court. 7 On 20 December 2019 the Registrar wrote to the applicant in these terms (omitting formal parts): I refer to the documents that you have lodged with the Federal Court of Australia, Tasmania Registry between 7 and 26 November 2019. Rule 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Rules) provides that a Registrar may refuse to accept a document (including a document that would, if accepted, become an originating application) if the Registrar is satisfied that the document is an abuse of the process of the Court or is frivolous or vexatious: (a) on the face of the document; or (b) by reference to any documents already filed or submitted for filing with the document. Pursuant to rule 2.26, I have refused to accept your documents for filing. My reasons are set out below. 1. Documents lodged on 7 November 2019 re XXXX and others I refer to the document lodged on 7 November 2019 titled 'Originating Application - Writ' (XXXX Application) and the documents lodged with it. The document makes allegations of negligence arising out of a workplace accident and fatality in 1962 in respect of your father. I have considered the XXXX Application and the documents lodged with it, and it raises numerous issues. In particular, the XXXX Application does not articulate your standing to bring the proposed claim based on 'culpable negligence'. Further, neither the XXXX Application nor the documents lodged with it identify any Commonwealth law or otherwise disclose a cause of action that could be heard by this Court. Accordingly, the Court has no jurisdiction to grant the relief you seek. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the XXXX Application constitutes an abuse of the process of the Court. 2. Documents lodged on 15 November 2019 re XXXX and others I refer to the document lodged on 15 November 2019 titled 'Originating Application - Writ (XXXX Application) and the documents lodged with it. The XXXX Application makes allegations against the named defendants with respect to the alleged removal of funds from your XXXX bank accounts. I have considered the XXXX Application and the documents lodged with it. Neither the XXXX Application nor the documents lodged with it disclose with any precision a cause of action against any of the proposed defendants. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the XXXX Application constitutes an abuse of the process of the Court. 3. Documents lodged on 25 November 2019 re XXXX and others I refer to the document lodged on 25 November 2019 titled 'General Form: Indictable Primary Proceedings' (XXXX Application), and the documents lodged with it. The XXXX Application makes allegations in respect of conduct towards a Ms XXXX and in respect of family law proceedings to which, as it appears on the face of the XXXX Application, you are not a party. I have considered the XXXX Application and the documents lodged with it, and it raises numerous issues. In particular, neither the XXXX Application nor the documents lodged with it disclose with any precision a cause of action against any of the proposed defendants. Further, it is evident from the XXXX Application that you, as the proposed applicant, have no interest in the matters raised in it but rather act as a 'friend' to Ms XXXX. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the XXXX Application constitutes an abuse of the process of the Court. 8 I take the applicant, who is self-represented, and appeared before me to make oral submissions, to be seeking judicial review under s 5 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (the ADJR Act) of the Registrar's refusals to accept for filing the various documents on the basis that the decisions to do so constituted an improper exercise of power (s 5(1)(e)). (The Registrar's decisions are of an administrative character and were made under an enactment within the meaning of the ADJR Act: see Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd [2010] FCAFC 47; (2010) 268 ALR 222 at 230-231 [49]-[50]. The court accordingly has jurisdiction to hear the applications for review.) 9 Section 5(1) of the ADJR Act relevantly provides: A person who is aggrieved by a decision to which this Act applies that is made after the commencement of this Act may apply to the Federal Court or the Federal Circuit Court for an order of review in respect of the decision on any one or more of the following grounds: … (e) that the making of the decision was an improper exercise of the power conferred by the enactment in pursuance of which it was purported to be made; … 10 For the purposes of claims under s 5(1)(e) of the ADJR Act, s 5(2) provides: The reference in paragraph (1)(e) to an improper exercise of a power shall be construed as including a reference to: (a) taking an irrelevant consideration into account in the exercise of a power; (b) failing to take a relevant consideration into account in the exercise of a power; (c) an exercise of a power for a purpose other than a purpose for which the power is conferred; (d) an exercise of a discretionary power in bad faith; (e) an exercise of a personal discretionary power at the direction or behest of another person; (f) an exercise of a discretionary power in accordance with a rule or policy without regard to the merits of the particular case; (g) an exercise of a power that is so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have so exercised the power; (h) an exercise of a power in such a way that the result of the exercise of the power is uncertain; and (j) any other exercise of a power in a way that constitutes abuse of the power. 11 Although the applicant does not refer in his applications for judicial review to any of the grounds in s 5(2) of the ADJR Act, I take the applications, in the applicant's favour, to be put on each of those grounds. 12 Rule 2.26 of the Rules states: 2.26 Refusal to accept document for filing - abuse of process or frivolous or vexatious documents A Registrar may refuse to accept a document (including a document that would, if accepted, become an originating application) if the Registrar is satisfied that the document is an abuse of the process of the Court or is frivolous or vexatious: (a) on the face of the document; or (b) by reference to any documents already filed or submitted for filing with the document. 13 In Bizuneh v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2003) 128 FCR 353, the Full Court discussed the purpose and nature of the power conferred by the predecessor to r 2.26, O 46 r 7A. Comparing the form of the rule as originally enacted with the form of O 46 r 7A as then in force, the Court said (at 356-357 [13]-[15]): Rule 7A in its original form was inserted in the Rules on 1 February 1983. It then read: Abuse of Process 7A. If a document in any proceeding, including any originating document, appears to a Registrar on its face to be an abuse of the process of the Court or to be frivolous or vexatious, the Registrar shall seek the direction of a Judge who may direct him to issue it or to refuse to issue it without the leave of a Judge first had and obtained by the party seeking to issue it. The rule was repealed and promulgated in its present form on 1 July 1985 and it reads as follows: Abuse of process 7A. If a document presented to a Registry in any proceeding, including any document which is or will if issued become an originating document, appears to a Registrar on its face to be an abuse of the process of the Court or to be frivolous or vexatious, the Registrar may refuse to accept or issue it or may seek the direction of a Judge who may direct him - (a) to accept or issue it; or (b) to refuse to accept or issue it; or (c) to refuse to accept or issue it without the leave of a Judge first had and obtained." The rule in its current form removed a clog on the Registrar's discretion to act by permitting the Registrar to refuse to accept or issue a document without the Registrar being required to obtain authority from a Judge so to act. The first point to note in the construction of the rule is that O 46 is directed to administration of registries of the Court. The purpose of r 7A is to assist the Registrar to maintain efficient operation of a registry and, thereby, the Court. Even without a rule in the terms of r 7A it may be thought that it would be implied that a Registrar would have the power, or be under a duty, to protect Court procedures from abuse by refusing to accept a document for lodgment or filing which, on its face, would be an abuse of court process or frivolous or vexatious. 14 The current form of r 2.26 is substantively the same as O 46 r 7A of the former rules: Shaw v Buljan [2016] FCA 829 at [31]. 15 Rule 2.26 is preconditioned on the Registrar reaching a state of satisfaction as to whether a lodged document constitutes an abuse of process or is frivolous or vexatious. Of the requisite state of satisfaction, Perram J said in Rahman v Hedge [2012] FCA 68 at [6]: [Rule 2.26] confers a power to refuse to accept a document for filing in circumstances where the Registrar is 'satisfied' of the particular state of affairs referred to in the rule. The manner and circumstances in which judicial review of powers subject to the formation of a satisfaction or of an opinion are to be conducted are well-known and usefully, with respect, collected by Gummow J in Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu (1999) 197 CLR 611 at 650-654 [128]-[137]. His Honour referred, with approval, to the judgment of Gibbs J in Buck v Bavone (1976) 135 CLR 110 at 118-119: In all such cases the authority must act in good faith; it cannot act merely arbitrarily or capriciously. Moreover, a person affected will obtain relief from the courts if he can show that the authority has misdirected itself in law or that it has failed to consider matters that it was required to consider or has taken irrelevant matters into account. Even if none of these things can be established, the courts will interfere if the decision reached by the authority appears so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could properly have arrived at it. However, where the matter of which the authority is required to be satisfied is a matter of opinion or policy or taste it may be very difficult to show that it erred in one of these ways, or that its decision could not reasonably have been reached. 16 A Registrar may reach the requisite state of satisfaction by having regard to the "face of the document" (r 2.26(a)) or by reference to "any documents already filed or submitted for filing with the document" (r 2.26(b)). 17 Considering the phrase "on the face" in O 46 r 7A, Sackville J said in Paramasivam v Randwick City Council [2005] FCA 369 at [45]: The expression 'on the face', according to Butterworths Australian Legal Dictionary refers to: the immediate and apparent meaning of something written; the meaning to be given to a word or phrase upon first glance; the literal meaning as opposed to any subjective meaning that may be given by inference or extrapolation. There is little doubt that if a Registrar refuses to accept a document for filing or seeks the direction of a Judge in relation to that document on the basis of the person's litigious history (unless perhaps the history is revealed on the face of the document itself), the Registrar has not confined himself or herself to a consideration of the relevant document 'on its face'. 18 Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd [2009] FCA 1171; 260 ALR 567 (upheld on appeal in Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd [2010] FCAFC 47; (2010) 268 ALR 222), was an application for review of a Registrar's refusal to accept for filing a notice of appeal, on the basis that the notice was an abuse of process because "it was doomed to fail" (citing Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378). Finding that there was no ground in s 5(1) of the ADJR Act that could assist the applicant, Foster J held (at [42]-[44]): In the present case, there is no evidence to suggest that the [Registrar] formed the opinion which she did by reference to anything other than the proposed notice of appeal. Indeed, Counsel for the first respondent made detailed submissions designed to demonstrate that the proposed Notice of Appeal was, on its face, clearly an abuse of the process of the court. Those submissions were based solely on the terms of the proposed notice of appeal. She submitted that the grounds of appeal were largely incomprehensible. Counsel also submitted that the pejorative terms 'duress'; 'suffering natural justice'; 'apprehended bias'; 'undue influence'; and 'favouritism' were all bandied about in the proposed Notice of Appeal without any proper foundation. In the proposed Notice of Appeal, the applicant also sought to incorporate oral arguments made before the Federal Magistrate in an entirely impermissible way. There is a great deal to be said for the arguments advanced by Counsel for the first respondent in support of the proposition that the Registrar's decision was plainly correct. But the first respondent does not need to go that far. The language of O 46 r 7A(1) requires the Registrar to form the opinion that the document presented for filing 'on its face' is 'an abuse of the process of the Court or is frivolous or vexatious' (the words are 'if the document appears to the Registrar … to be …') (Emphasis added). That opinion must be honestly and actually formed. It is the appearance to the mind of the Registrar of the requisite circumstances which enlivens the power to reject a document for filing. The Registrar must form that opinion reasonably (Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng (2001) 205 CLR 507 at [73] (p 532) and the cases referred to in footnote 52 on p 532 of the report). This latter requirement must not be used as a back door means of carrying out a merits review of the relevant decision. In the present case, there is no evidence upon which I could, let alone should, make a finding that the [Registrar] did not actually and honestly form the opinion which she expressed in her letter to the applicant dated 7 July 2009. The terms of the proposed Notice of Appeal itself provide a reasonable basis for the formation of that opinion. 19 In my view, the Registrar was clearly correct to refuse to accept each of the documents for filing. Each of them is on its face a patent abuse of process because in every respect they make allegations that, among other descriptions that may be made of them, are doomed to fail. Each of the applications must therefore be dismissed. I certify that the preceding nineteen (19) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice O'Callaghan.