//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2026] ACTSC 237
Supreme Court of the ACT
2026-07-13
Muller J
Original judgment source is linked above.
Source: the ACT Courts (www.courts.act.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: Re Morgan; referral under r 6142 Citation: [2026] ACTSC 237 Hearing Date: On the papers Decision Date: 13 July 2026 Before: Muller J Direction: (1) Pursuant to r 6142(3)(b) of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), the Registrar is directed to reject the document. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – ABUSE OF PROCESS – Catchwords: Referral of document for directions pursuant to r 6142 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) – Where the document seeks orders in substantially the same terms as a previous originating application – direction made to reject the document
Legislation Cited: Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), r 6142 MULLER J:
The Registrar has referred a document to me under r 6142 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) (the Rules) (the document).
Rule 6142 of the Rules applies where a document is filed in the court, and it appears to the Registrar on its face to be an abuse of the court’s process or otherwise to be frivolous or vexatious. The Registrar is empowered to reject the document or refer the document to a judicial officer for directions about how to deal with it. The Registrar thus seeks a direction from me pursuant to r 6142(3) of the Rules which provides: 6142 Rejecting documents—abuse of process etc (1) This rule applies if a document that is filed in the court appears to the registrar on its face to be an abuse of the court’s process or to be frivolous or vexatious. (2) The registrar may— (a) reject the document; or (b) refer the document to a judicial officer for directions about how to deal with it. (3) If the registrar refers the document to a judicial officer, the judicial officer may direct the registrar— (a) to accept the document; or (b) to reject the document; or (c) to reject the document unless the court gives leave to accept the document. (4) This rule applies to a written notification under rule 6613 (Documents and things in custody of court) as if it were a document filed in the court. (5) In this rule: judicial officer means— (a) for the Supreme Court—a judge; or (b) for the Magistrates Court—a magistrate. (notes omitted by this court)
The document is in the form of an originating application seeking the issue of a writ of mandamus compelling the Construction Occupations Registrar to issue a certificate of occupancy and use in respect of premises at 23B Dumaresq Street Dickson.
A comparison between the document and the originating application in SC 519 of 2025 reveals the two are in virtually identical terms and traverse essentially the same issues. In SC 519 of 2025 I delivered my decision on 3 July 2026. The effect of my decision was to dismiss the originating application.
A comparison of the orders sought in each of the applications is set out in the table below: Originating Application – SC 519 of 2025; Filed The Document 23 December 2025
“URGENTLY issue a WRIT of MANDAMUS “issue an URGENT & PEREMPTORY WRIT compelling the Defendant: Construction OF MANDAMUS compelling the Respondent Occupations Registrar Nick LHEUDE to to perform the duty of issue Certificate of perform the mandatory duty of issue Certificate Occupancy and Use, CO, under ACT of Occupancy and Use, COY, for B15 S26, 23b Building Act 2004 s.69(1 or 2) for B15 S26, Dumaresq St DICKSON ACT 2602, under ACT Residence B, 23B Dumaresq St, Dickson Building Act 2004 s.69(1) to the property owner ACT 2602 to the property owner and Plaintiff and Plaintiff: Gregory MORGAN.” within 14 days – NOT merely to answer Plaintiff’s unanswered COU s.69(1 or 2) applications of 13 March 2026 and 3 July 2026 with another Notice of Decision, NOD. If respondent fails to do so, URGENT & Peremptory Hearings will rule this matter.”
“Plaintiff also petitions the court to: “I also petition the court to: 1. Reduce the application fee of 8.1. reduce the application fee of this matter this matter as the build costs of as the build costs of my needed age-in-place his needed age-in-place home home have far exceeded expectations due to have far exceeded expectations due to the the addition costs of the Respondent’s additional costs imposed on actions in this matter, him by the Respondent’s actions in this matter, e.g. 8.2. award me compensation & punitive June Morgan’s Affidavit with compensation for Respondent’s delay in Exhibit GM X-1 pp 76, 82, 84 issuing COU application and keeping an old 2. Require the Defendant pay the man from his NEEDED age-in-place home at Plaintiff’s costs of this matter NO risk to the Respondent, the government and any other relief the court or the public considers applicable and appropriate” 8.3. require the Respondent pay my costs of this matter and any other relief the court considers applicable and appropriate”
(emphasis in originals, [SIC])
As the orders sought in the document are, in substance, the orders sought in SC 519 of 2025, in respect of which a decision has previously been given, the document amounts to an abuse of process.
The direction I make is: (1) Pursuant to r 6142(3)(b) of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), the Registrar is directed to reject the document.
I certify that the preceding seven [7] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Direction of his Honour Justice Muller. Associate: MG Malouf Date: 13 July 2026