The background to this application is that, in matter NSD1825/2024, Ms McGinn applies for judicial review under s 5 of the (Cth) () to review a decision of Registrar Edwards of the Federal Court made on 11 December 2024, on grounds of breach of natural justice, improper exercise of the relevant power, and no evidence to justify making the decision. The orders sought in that proceeding include a direction by the Chief Justice under of the (Cth) () that the proceedings be heard by a Full Court, as well as an order setting aside the decision made on 11 December 2024.
The direction sought in NSD1825/2025 was refused by the Chief Justice on 24 February 2025 on the ground that the matter was not of sufficient importance to justify a direction under s 20(1A). That decision is the subject of matter NSD519/2025, in which Ms McGinn seeks an order under s 13(4A) of the AD(JR) Act as to whether she is entitled to written reasons for the Chief Justice's decision. Ms McGinn made a request for reasons by email on 3 March 2025 which was declined by email on 6 March 2025.
By interlocutory application dated 11 April 2025 in matter NSD1825/2024, Ms McGinn seeks an order staying matter NSD1825/2024 until NSD519/2025 is determined. I have therefore decided to deal first with NSD519/2025.
In NSD519/2025, Ms McGinn states as the ground of her application that she is entitled to written reasons under s 13(1) of the AD(JR) Act because the Chief Justice's decision is an administrative decision to which the AD(JR) Act applies.
I note that Ms McGinn has also applied for default judgment under r 5.23(2)(c) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (the Rules) on the basis that, while she filed her genuine steps statement under r 8.02, the respondent did not file its genuine steps statement under r 5.03, and therefore did not comply with the Rules within the meaning of r 5.22(a). Note 1 to r 5.23 states that the Court may make any order that it considers appropriate in the interests of justice. The mere fact of non-compliance with the Rules is not sufficient to justify an order for default judgment. In addition, the applicant informed me that this morning she filed an application for summary judgment in NSD519/2025. That application is not available to me, but I will proceed on the basis that it has been filed.
The applications for default judgment and summary judgment, as well as the application for judicial review in NSD519/2025, depend on whether there is any merit in Ms McGinn's substantive application for reasons to be given under s 13 of the AD(JR) Act. In my view, there is no merit in that application.
Section 13(1) of the AD(JR) Act provides that reasons for decisions may be obtained where a person makes "a decision to which this section applies".
That expression is defined in s 13(11) as a decision to which the AD(JR) Act applies (being certain decision of an "administrative character" as defined in s 3(1)), but does not include, relevantly, a decision included in any of the classes of decisions set out in Schedule 2 to the AD(JR) Act. One of the classes of decision as set out in Schedule 2, is "decisions in connection with the institution or conduct of proceedings in a civil court": see para (f).
The decision of the Chief Justice under s 20(1A) was judicial rather than administrative in character, and was in connection with the conduct of proceedings in a civil court. It was therefore not a decision to which s 13 applies.
Further, as the respondent has filed a submitting appearance under r 12.01, I do not regard any non-compliance with r 5.03 as being of significance. For those reasons, the originating application in NSD519/2025 is dismissed.
[4]
I certify that the preceding ten (10) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Jackman.