Skinner v Ford Motor Company of Australia Limited [2010] FMCA 321

Federal Magistrates Court of Australia|2010-05-05

(1) That the application filed 16 March 2010 be dismissed.

(2) That there be no order as to costs.

This application purports to be an application under rule 20.02 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules to review a decision of a registrar. The relevant decision was a decision pursuant to rule 2.06(1)(a) of the rules to refuse to accept for filing an application that Mr Skinner was attempting to file against Ford Motor Company of Australia. There is in this instance a serious question concerning that matter. Rule 20.02 is referable back to section 104 subsection (2) of the Act, which allows for an application to be made to the court to review the exercise by the registrar of any of the powers listed under , or as delegated under of the Act.

"That the application is an application to hear and decide the matter in Grant Skinner v Ford Motor Company that was dismissed in Melbourne on 18 September 2009 by Phipps FM that an application for leave to appear from that judgment was dismissed by the Federal Court and I see that the decision of Sundberg J in Skinner v Ford Motor Company Australia Limited (2009) FCA 1554."

It seems on that occasion that Mr Skinner again was seeking to re-agitate maters that had previously been raised before the court and/or his application for leave to appeal which was dismissed. The registrar had informed him in correspondence on 5 March this year that he did not intend to enter into debate with Mr Skinner or to provide him with any commentary in relation to his decision not to accept the application for filing because he considered it inappropriate to do so. Respectfully, I think the registrar's remarks were appropriate. Mr Skinner was, on that occasion, informed of his rights and, again, I think the registrar's approach was appropriate.
It follows then, as I have already noted, that this is not a matter which is appropriately commenced before the court. It is more appropriately - if it is to be subject to any review - as one that would be subject to judicial review pursuant to the provisions of the AD(JR) Act, and it follows in the circumstances that the application ought be dismissed. And I so order. The respondent does not seek costs.
The orders will simply be that the application is dismissed, no order as to costs. I should note for the record that I proceeded to hear the application in the absence of Mr Skinner, who has informed the court by an email forwarded to the court on 30 April, that he was unable to attend by telephone conference this morning, and that all he required were written reasons to be emailed to him at an address he has provided. That will happen in due course.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Burnett FM

Magistrates Act 1999

Magistrates Court Rules 2001

Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (5 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (3)

Cases Cited (1)