Zoia v Administrative Appeals Tribunal

introduction 1 The Court is considering, of its own motion, whether this application should be stayed or dismissed generally under Order 20 rule 2 of the Federal Court Rules on the ground or grounds that no reasonable cause of action is disclosed or that the application is frivolous or vexatious, or is an abuse of the process of the Court.

factual and procedural background 2 On 8 November 2002, the applicant filed a document which was a printed form headed "Notice of Appeal". In paragraph 1 of that document the applicant states that he appeals from the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal given on 18 October 2002 whereby the Tribunal decided "Dismissed without Tribunal hearing". 3 Paragraph 2 of that document reads as follows: "THE QUESTIONS OF LAW raised on the appeal are Freedom of Information. Jurisdiction of Judicial Power." 4 In paragraph 3 under the heading "Orders Sought" there appears: "JUSTICE. Stay of proceeding, my rights to legal representative." 5 Under the heading "Grounds" in paragraph 4 of the document there appears the following: "The Constitution. The High Court ruled that 'the Parliament has no power to entrust the exercise of judicial power to any other hands'. They are saying that it is administration law, that is section 51 of the Constitution." 6 I note at this point that although the proceeding is referred to as an appeal, it is an application in the original jurisdiction of this court and, in my view, is a matter in respect of which the powers conferred under Order 20 rule 2 of the Federal Court Rules may be exercised. 7 On 23 December 2002, the Australian Government Solicitor filed a notice of appearance on behalf of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. When the application first came on for directions, on 7 February 2002 the applicant did not appear. Mr T J Carey appeared as counsel for the respondent and confirmed that the respondent's position was that its appearance was a submitting appearance. I made the following directions: "1. Applicant to file and serve on the respondent any affidavit upon which he intends to rely within 28 days. 2. The Court is considering whether to strike this application out as either disclosing no reasonable cause of action or being frivolous or vexatious or an abuse of the process of the Court pursuant to Order 20 rule 2 of the Federal Court Rules. 3. The applicant may within 42 days file and serve any written submissions in opposition to such striking out. 4. The application is adjourned to 9.15 am on 1 April 2003 for the purposes of determining whether the application should be struck out or whether further directions should be made." 8 The District Registry sent a copy of those orders to the applicant. 9 On 12 March 2003, a document was received by the Court which appears to be from the applicant. It does not bear the heading of these proceedings and although it is entitled "Affidavit" does not take the form of an affidavit. The document reads as follows: "AFFIDAVIT