Seidler, in the application of Kathryn Seidler [2017] FCA 113

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Seidler, in the application of Kathryn Seidler [2017] FCA 113 Judge: RARES J

Date of judgment: 17 February 2017

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – vexatious proceedings – application for leave to commence a proceeding in the Court

Legislation: Australian Human Right Commission Act 1986 (Cth) s 46PO Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth) s 88Q Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 37AR

Cases cited: Seidler v Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology & Anor (No 2) [2016] FCCA 1662 Seidler v Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology & Anor (No 3) [2016] FCCA 1623 Seidler v Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology & Anor [2016] FCCA 1588 Seidler v Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (No 2) [2016] FCCA 1925 Seidler v Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology [2016] FCCA 1205 Seidler v University of New South Wales (No 3) [2011] FCA 1330 Seidler, in the application of Kathryn Seidler [2013] FCA 125

Date of hearing: Determined on the papers

Registry: New South Wales

Division: General Division

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 8

ORDERS

IN THE APPLICATION OF: KATHRYN SEIDLER Applicant

JUDGE: RARES J DATE OF ORDER: 17 February 2017

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Leave to commence a proceeding is refused. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

RARES J: 1 This application under s 37AR of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) has come before me as duty judge. The applicant, Kathryn Seidler, cannot commence any proceeding in this Court without the leave of the Court because Perram J made a vexatious proceedings order against her on 22 November 2011: Seidler v University of New South Wales (No 3) [2011] FCA 1330. Ms Seidler seeks leave to file an application for an extension of time and to appeal from the decisions of the Federal Circuit Court in: Seidler v Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology [2016] FCCA 1205 and Seidler v Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (No 2) [2016] FCCA 1925, in which Judge Cameron dismissed her application for damages under s 46PO of the Australian Human Right Commission Act 1986 (Cth) and made a vexatious proceedings order under s 88Q of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth) that Ms Seidler not continue or commence any proceedings in the Federal Circuit Court without leave of that Court and subsequently ordered her to pay costs; Seidler v Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology & Anor [2016] FCCA 1588; Seidler v Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology & Anor (No 2) [2016] FCCA 1662; and Seidler v Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology & Anor (No 3) [2016] FCCA 1623 in which Judge Street refused to grant her leave to continue proceedings in that Court and ordered her to pay costs. 2 Ms Seidler's application was over 20 pages long and was accompanied by four affidavits, one sworn on 23 January 2017 and three others sworn on 3 February 2017, one of which Ms Seidler said that she had "culled … down to 36,000 words excluding the table of Exhibits". 3 In refusing leave for an earlier application that Ms Seidler made in 2013, Robertson J noted that nothing resembling a notice of appeal appeared in the documents on which she relied on that occasion: Seidler, in the application of Kathryn Seidler [2013] FCA 125. 4 The affidavits and exhibits fill two large lever arch folders. They are incomprehensible, rambling, and have no apparent connection to any issue in the decisions of Judges Cameron or Street. There is no copy of any of the reasons for judgment of either of their Honours or any draft notice of appeal in this morass of documentation. 5 The documents on which Ms Seidler has based her application for leave under s 37AR would be, if filed in a proceeding, an abuse of process. For example, in her affidavit of 23 January 2017 Ms Seidler stated, among other matters, apparently in relation to a Juris Doctor degree in law in which she was enrolled and from which she had apparently sought to withdraw: 87. I was effectively being imprisoned by the respondents in the JD program and it was impractical given my sex … medical, legal, work and financial priorities … 6 I have omitted some personal details in the ellipses, but those omissions do not affect the lack of coherence in either a sentence that ran for five lines or the overall case that Ms Seidler has sought to articulate in the documents that she has lodged in support of this application. 7 In her application for leave, Ms Seidler wrote: "I see this as asking the court for assistance similar to a full and final divorce …". That is not a proper use of the Court's processes. The voluminous material that Ms Seidler seeks to file does not appear to reveal a matter that is intelligible or to demonstrate any arguable basis for which the Court's processes should be used. The material in the current form would be an abuse of process 8 Accordingly, the Court should not have to deal with the subject matter of this vexatious application. I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Rares.