FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Croker v Deputy Registrar of the High Court of Australia [2003] FCAFC 280 PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – "appeal" from a decision of a single Judge of this Court exercising appellate jurisdiction – "appeal" incompetent Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 25(2)(a) Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 46 Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth), s 5 Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 39B High Court Rules O 69A r 13(1) WATI v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1997) 78 FCR 543 cited CLAYTON ROBERT CROKER v DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA and GEORGE CHALLONER N134 OF 2003 LEE, GOLDBERG & WEINBERG JJ 1 DECEMBER 2003 SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N134 OF 2003 BETWEEN: CLAYTON ROBERT CROKER APPELLANT AND: DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA FIRST RESPONDENT AND: GEORGE CHALLONER SECOND RESPONDENT JUDGES LEE, GOLDBERG & WEINBERG JJ DATE OF ORDER: 1 DECEMBER 2003 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed with costs. 2. Any further proceeding by the appellant in the matter not be accepted for filing unless a Judge directs an officer of the Court to accept the document. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N134 OF 2003 BETWEEN: CLAYTON ROBERT CROKER APPELLANT AND: DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA FIRST RESPONDENT AND: GEORGE CHALLONER SECOND RESPONDENT JUDGES LEE, GOLDBERG & WEINBERG JJ DATE: 1 DECEMBER 2003 PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT THE COURT: 1 This is a purported appeal from a decision of a Judge of this Court (Hely J) exercising the appellate jurisdiction of the Court under s 25(2)(a) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) when his Honour refused leave to appeal from an interlocutory order made by another Judge of this Court (Madgwick J) that the appellant provide security for costs. 2 A brief history of the matter may be set out as follows. 3 In December 1998 the appellant commenced proceedings against the second respondent in the District Court of New South Wales. The proceedings were struck out by an acting Judge of that court on 6 August 1999. A judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, said to be exercising the "powers of the Court of Appeal pursuant to s 46 of the Supreme Court Act 1970", refused an application by the appellant to extend the time for an application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the District Court. An "appeal" to the Court of Appeal from that decision was dismissed on 23 November 2000. 4 On 18 December 2000 the appellant filed in the New South Wales Registry of the High Court an application for special leave to appeal. The application books were not filed thereafter in the time prescribed by the Rules of the High Court ("the Rules") and on 14 September 2001 the appellant was informed by the first respondent, a Deputy Registrar of the High Court, that the application for special leave was deemed to have been abandoned pursuant to O 69A r 13(1) of the Rules. 5 On 8 October 2001 the appellant filed an application in this Court pursuant to s 5 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) and s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) seeking judicial review and prerogative orders in respect of the "decision" of the first respondent. On 26 March 2002 the appellant was given leave to join the second respondent as an additional respondent to the application. The application was heard and dismissed by a Judge of this Court (Allsop J) on 3 February 2003. On 18 February 2003 the appellant filed a notice of appeal from that decision. 6 On 15 May 2003 Madgwick J ordered that the appellant provide security for the costs of the second respondent in the appeal. At that point, numerous orders for costs had been made against the appellant in favour of the second respondent and the orders remained unsatisfied. It is accepted that the appellant is impecunious. 7 It is obvious that the purported "appeal" is incompetent. (See: WAITI v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1997) 78 FCR 543). The appellate jurisdiction of the Court has been exercised by Hely J. 8 The "appeal" must be dismissed with costs. Orders for costs have not restrained the appellant from occasioning the second respondent continued expenditure on solicitors' costs and counsel fees in a succession of hopeless proceedings. The interests of justice demand that it be ordered that any further proceeding in the matter sought to be commenced by the appellant not be accepted for filing in the Court unless a Judge directs an officer to accept the document. I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of their Honours Justices Lee, Goldberg and Weinberg. Associate: Dated: 5 December 2003 The appellant appeared in person Counsel for the Second Respondent: Mr J Downing Solicitors for the Second Respondent: Abbott Tout Date of Hearing: 1 December 2003 Date of Judgment: 1 December 2003