Bowen, in the matter of Bowen [2006] FCA 178

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Bowen, in the matter of Bowen [2006] FCA 178

COURTS AND JUDGES – proceeding – initiating process – whether should be accepted – whether abuse of process – whether frivolous and vexatious – claim of misleading and deceptive conduct and unconscionable conduct by counsel in making submission to State tribunal – whether cause of action available – causation – submission accepted by State tribunal

Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ss 51A, 52, 80, 86 Federal Court Rules O 46 r 7A

IN THE MATTER OF MICHAEL GREGORY BOWEN GRAY J 14 FEBRUARY 2006 MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

IN THE MATTER OF MICHAEL GREGORY BOWEN

JUDGE: GRAY J

DATE: 14 FEBRUARY 2006

PLACE: MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT the Registrar be directed not to accept the application and the affidavit of Michael Gregory Bowen, sworn on 14 February 2006, presented to the Registrar by Michael Gregory Bowen this day. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

IN THE MATTER OF MICHAEL GREGORY BOWEN

JUDGE: GRAY J

DATE: 14 FEBRUARY 2006

PLACE: MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 Earlier today, Mr Michael Gregory Bowen presented at the registry of this Court, and sought to file initiating process for a proceeding. The documents he sought to file consisted of what appears to be intended to be an application, together with an affidavit with a single annexure. A registrar of the Court formed the view that the proposed proceeding would be an abuse of the process of the Court, or would be frivolous or vexatious, and referred the matter to me as duty judge, pursuant to O 46 r 7A of the Federal Court Rules. 2 I indicated to the Registrar, by way of other staff, that I proposed to hear Mr Bowen before making a decision whether to direct the Registrar to accept or to refuse to accept the process proffered. It appears that this message was misunderstood and, in the meantime, the staff of the registry have sealed copies of the process, and have opened a file bearing the number VID 130 of 2006. The Registrar having referred the matter to me pursuant to O 46 r 7A, I do not think that I am deprived of the power given to me by that rule to give a direction to the Registrar by the opening of the file and the sealing of the process proffered. 3 The application, which Mr Bowen attempted to file, purports to invoke the jurisdiction conferred on the Court by ss 80 and 86 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ('the Trade Practices Act'). The orders sought in the application are in the following terms: