Ross v National Judicial Registrar Goucke [2026] FCA 207

The applicant, Mr Christopher Ross, commenced this proceeding by an originating application for judicial review dated 7 January 2025. He sought judicial review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) of a decision made by National Judicial Registrar Goucke on 5 December 2024 to refuse to accept a document for filing under rr 2.26 and 2.27(b) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). He also sought to have this proceeding joined with an application for relief pursuant to s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth).
In support of the originating application, the applicant filed an affidavit, which he affirmed on 3 January 2025, and a statement of claim dated 7 January 2025.
As is customary in such proceedings, the Registrar filed a notice submitting to any order that the Court may make in the proceeding, save as to costs.
At the first case management hearing before Registrar Curnow on 7 March 2025, the applicant sought orders for the appointment of pro bono counsel. Registrar Curnow ordered that the applicant file a Statement of Financial Position, so that his request for pro bono counsel could be considered, and listed the proceeding for a further case management hearing on 28 March 2025.
At the case management hearing on 28 March 2025, Registrar Curnow made orders for the appointment of counsel as amicus curiae to assist the Court, and made orders for the future conduct of the proceeding.
The applicant evidently was not satisfied with that course and, as a result, issued five separate interlocutory applications to effectively seek to vacate Registrar Curnow's orders and obtain a stay of the proceeding to enable him to obtain legal representation on a 'no win, no fee' basis.
On 17 July 2025 the applicant filed a Notice of a Constitutional Matter under s 78B of the Judiciary Act. The s 78B notice claims that the proceeding involves a matter arising under the Constitution or involving its interpretation within the meaning of s 78B of the Judiciary Act.
Ultimately, on 2 December 2025, the applicant withdrew all of the interlocutory applications he had filed. By that stage, the Court had convened five separate hearings.
At a further case management hearing on 12 December 2025, the applicant was ordered to file an outline of submissions in support of the originating application by 30 January 2026, and the proceeding was set down for hearing by audio-visual link at 10.00am on 26 February 2026. The order that the hearing occur by audio-visual link was made at the applicant's request.
The orders were sent to the applicant later that day, along with details of the audio-visual link for the applicant to appear at the hearing.
The applicant filed an outline of submissions on 24 February 2026, being two days before the hearing.
The hearing was scheduled to commence at 10.00am on 26 February 2026. The applicant did not join the audio-visual link before 10.00am.
The hearing commenced shortly after 10.00am. The matter was called and the applicant did not appear in person or via the audio-visual link that was provided.
As the applicant did not appear on the day his proceeding was set down for trial, r 30.22 of the Rules applied and I made an order, pursuant to r 30.22, dismissing the proceeding. These are my reasons for doing so.

Ross v National Judicial Registrar Goucke [2026] FCA 207 | Case summary | Zoe

The applicant, Mr Christopher Ross, commenced this proceeding by an originating application for judicial review dated 7 January 2025. He sought judicial review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) of a decision made by National Judicial Registrar Goucke on 5 December 2024 to refuse to accept a document for filing under rr 2.26 and 2.27(b) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). He also sought to have this proceeding joined with an application for relief pursuant to s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth).
In support of the originating application, the applicant filed an affidavit, which he affirmed on 3 January 2025, and a statement of claim dated 7 January 2025.
As is customary in such proceedings, the Registrar filed a notice submitting to any order that the Court may make in the proceeding, save as to costs.
At the first case management hearing before Registrar Curnow on 7 March 2025, the applicant sought orders for the appointment of pro bono counsel. Registrar Curnow ordered that the applicant file a Statement of Financial Position, so that his request for pro bono counsel could be considered, and listed the proceeding for a further case management hearing on 28 March 2025.
At the case management hearing on 28 March 2025, Registrar Curnow made orders for the appointment of counsel as amicus curiae to assist the Court, and made orders for the future conduct of the proceeding.
The applicant evidently was not satisfied with that course and, as a result, issued five separate interlocutory applications to effectively seek to vacate Registrar Curnow's orders and obtain a stay of the proceeding to enable him to obtain legal representation on a 'no win, no fee' basis.
On 17 July 2025 the applicant filed a Notice of a Constitutional Matter under s 78B of the Judiciary Act. The s 78B notice claims that the proceeding involves a matter arising under the Constitution or involving its interpretation within the meaning of s 78B of the Judiciary Act.
Ultimately, on 2 December 2025, the applicant withdrew all of the interlocutory applications he had filed. By that stage, the Court had convened five separate hearings.
At a further case management hearing on 12 December 2025, the applicant was ordered to file an outline of submissions in support of the originating application by 30 January 2026, and the proceeding was set down for hearing by audio-visual link at 10.00am on 26 February 2026. The order that the hearing occur by audio-visual link was made at the applicant's request.
The orders were sent to the applicant later that day, along with details of the audio-visual link for the applicant to appear at the hearing.
The applicant filed an outline of submissions on 24 February 2026, being two days before the hearing.
The hearing was scheduled to commence at 10.00am on 26 February 2026. The applicant did not join the audio-visual link before 10.00am.
The hearing commenced shortly after 10.00am. The matter was called and the applicant did not appear in person or via the audio-visual link that was provided.
As the applicant did not appear on the day his proceeding was set down for trial, r 30.22 of the Rules applied and I made an order, pursuant to r 30.22, dismissing the proceeding. These are my reasons for doing so.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (4 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (2)