The application is dismissed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
RANGIAH J:
The applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of the respondent, a Judicial Registrar of the Court (the Registrar), to refuse to accept the documents lodged by the applicant for filing on the basis that they were frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process.
The Registrar has filed a submitting appearance.
I take the application to have been brought under s 5 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (the ADJR Act): see Nyoni v Murphy (2018) 261 FCR 146 at [37]. Accordingly, it is necessary for the applicant to establish that the Registrar's decision involved legal error of the kind set out in s 5 of the ADJR Act.
On 19 August 2024, the applicant lodged for filing a proposed Originating Application, Concise Statement and Genuine Steps Statement.
The proposed Originating Application named sixty respondents and claimed damages for false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and negligence.
The proposed Concise Statement asserts that the applicant's claims arose from criminal proceedings taken against him in the District Court of Queensland that were ultimately discontinued. The thrust of the applicant's allegations is that there was a conspiracy, "to prevent the applicant from receiving a fair trial". The conspiracy is alleged to have involved the Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions, judges of the District Court and various firms of solicitors. The Concise Statement states that the applicant's proceeding was brought under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the ICCPR), the Queensland Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), the Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules 2012, the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), the Queensland Police Service Operational Procedures Manual, the Constitution of Queensland and the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld).
One of the proposed respondents is the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (the ABC) and another is the Commonwealth of Australia (the Commonwealth). The allegations against these parties in the proposed Concise Statement are that the ABC failed to report upon the applicant's case in order to cover up, "the phenomenal corruption that has been engaged in by the State and the allowance of it by the Commonwealth by failing in their duties under the United Nations International covenants".
Rule 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (the Rules) provides:
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.
On 22 August 2024, the Registrar decided under r 2.26 of the Rules to refuse to accept the applicant's documents for filing. The reasons given by the Registrar were, relevantly:
I am satisfied that I should refuse to accept the documents because they meet the definitions of "frivolous", "vexatious" and "abuse of process" described by Justice White in [Ferdinands v Registrar Cridland [2021] FCA 592]. The documents do not disclose a cause of action involving federal jurisdiction. That is, the documents do not identify a Federal legal basis, being a Federal rather than a State statute or international covenant, that grounds the cause of action referred to in the documents.
In Ferdinands v Registrar Cridland [2021] FCA 592, White J observed at [30] that, "a proceeding will be frivolous and vexatious if, amongst other things, it is based on a cause of action which no reasonable person could properly treat bona fide or if it is without substance, groundless or fanciful": see also Ferdinands v Cridland [2022] FCAFC 80 at [31].
The applicant's application for judicial review of the Registrar's decision asserts, in summary:
The Registrar was wrong to conclude that the documents do not disclose a cause of action invoking federal jurisdiction because one respondent is the ABC and another is the Commonwealth of Australia, providing the legal basis for the matter to be heard in the Federal Court.
Article 9 of the ICCPR operates to make the Commonwealth vicariously liable for any breaches of the ICCPR.
The Commonwealth is vicariously liable for contraventions of Article 14 of the ICCPR.
The ABC is, "listed as a defendant on the basis that they breached their editorial guidelines in refusing to print this story".
The Registrar was well aware of the unlawfulness of his response and acted fraudulently and with malicious intent by refusing to accept the documents for filing in an attempt to hide the serious criminal behaviour of numerous Queensland Government departments who protect high profile and wealthy individuals.
The applicant's written submissions assert that the Registrar erred in determining that he had authority or jurisdiction to refuse to accept the documents for filing, but that allegation was not explained or developed.
The applicant's written submissions also assert that the Registrar erred in determining that the ICCPR, "does not ground the cause of action in the Federal Court given it places liability squarely on the Commonwealth of Australia". That proposition was also the focus of the applicant's oral submissions.
The foundation of the applicant's case is his assertion that the Court has jurisdiction in respect of his claims against the Commonwealth and the ABC.
Section 19(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) provides that the Court has "such original jurisdiction as is vested in it by laws made by the Parliament". One such law is s 39B(1A)(c) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) which confers original jurisdiction on the Federal Court, "in any matter…arising under any laws made by the Parliament…".
In Rana v Google Inc (2017) 254 FCR 1, the Full Court explained at [17]:
The "matter" is the justiciable controversy between the parties arising out of the substratum of facts and claims representing, or amounting to, the dispute or controversy between or amongst the parties. Where federal and non-federal claims comprise the same justiciable controversy, a court exercising federal jurisdiction will have jurisdiction to resolve the entire matter in the exercise of its federal jurisdiction. The non-federal part of the matter is sometimes referred to as "accrued jurisdiction" (as distinct from the associated jurisdiction provided for under s 32 of the Federal Court of Australia Act). It is better understood and expressed, however, as being part of the one matter…
(Citations omitted.)
A matter in which jurisdiction is conferred on the Federal Court may include claims arising under common law or under the statute law of a state: Australian Securities and Investment Commission v Edensor Nominees Pty Ltd (2001) 204 CLR 559 at [7].
A matter arises under a law made by the Commonwealth Parliament if the right or duty in question in the matter owes its existence to federal law or depends upon federal law for its enforcement: Northern Territory v GPAO (1999) 196 CLR 553 at [90], [133].
However, federal jurisdiction is not attracted where the federal claim that is made is "colourable" in the sense that it was "made for the improper purpose of 'fabricating' jurisdiction" such that it was not made bona fide: Burgundy Royale Investments Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation (1987) 18 FCR 212 at 219.
Piecing together the applicant's argument as best I can, it appears to be that he has causes of action against the Commonwealth and the ABC that arise under Commonwealth laws and that his claims against the remaining potential respondents arise out of the same substratum of facts so that they are part of the same matter.
The applicant's oral submissions focused upon alleged contraventions of Arts 9 and 14 of the ICCPR by fifty-eight of the sixty proposed respondents, for which the Commonwealth is alleged to be vicariously liable. The difficulty with that argument is that an international treaty can operate as a source of rights and obligations under domestic law only if, and to the extent that, it has been enacted by Parliament: Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs (2022) 275 CLR 582 at [20]. The applicant has not asserted that any Commonwealth laws enact the relevant Articles of the ICCPR or make the Commonwealth vicariously liable for contraventions of the ICCPR. Accordingly, the applicant's claim against the Commonwealth does not arise under any laws of the Commonwealth Parliament.
The applicant's proposed claim against the ABC is based upon its alleged breach of editorial guidelines in refusing to print his story. The applicant does not assert that such editorial guidelines form any part of the laws of the Commonwealth, nor that any breach of them gives rise to any breach of any law of the Commonwealth. The applicant's claim against the ABC does not arise under any law of the Commonwealth.
It was apparent that the applicant proposed claims were based upon assertion of federal jurisdiction which no reasonable person could properly treat as bona fide. That assertion of jurisdiction is also properly described as without substance, groundless and fanciful.
Accordingly, there was no error in the Registrar's conclusion that the proceedings were frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process.
The application for judicial review must be dismissed.
I certify that the preceding twenty-five (25) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Rangiah.
Parties
Applicant/Plaintiff:
Wood
Respondent/Defendant:
Buckingham
Legislation Cited (9)
Court Rules 2011(Cth)
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the ICCPR), the Queensland Human Rights Act 2019(Qld)
(Qld), the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000(Qld)