Atkinson v Stanley [2017] FCA 1110

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Atkinson v Stanley [2017] FCA 1110 File number: WAD 263 of 2017

Judge: MCKERRACHER J

Date of judgment: 20 September 2017

Legislation: Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) ss 6(1)(a), 6(1)((b), 6(1)(f) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) Ch III, s 35A Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 2.27, 31.01(1)

Date of hearing: 26 July 2017

Due date for Submissions: 10 August 2017

Registry: Western Australia

Division: General Division

National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights

Category: No Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 37

Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person

Counsel for the Respondent: The Respondent submits to any order of the Court, save as to the question of costs

ORDERS WAD 263 of 2017

BETWEEN: GARTH PEERS ATKINSON Applicant

AND: DEPUTY DISTRICT REGISTRAR ELIZABETH M STANLEY Respondent

JUDGE: MCKERRACHER J DATE OF ORDER: 20 SEPTEMBER 2017

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application be dismissed. 2. There be no order as to costs. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

MCKERRACHER J: 1 Mr Atkinson seeks judicial review pursuant to s 6(1)(a), (b) and (f) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (ADJR Act) and r 31.01(1) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) of a decision of a Deputy District Registrar of the Court. Very shortly expressed, Mr Atkinson complains of the Deputy District Registrar's failure to accept for filing an earlier application for judicial review seeking to review another Deputy District Registrar's (the original DDR) apparent rejection of an application for leave to appeal from a decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (the application). 2 These reasons rely only on the materials provided by Mr Atkinson. But it appears apparent from those materials that the Deputy District Registrar reconsidered the decision not to accept the application for filing and invited Mr Atkinson to proceed with lodging the application, together with an assurance that the application would be accepted for filing. In those circumstances, it is difficult to see any function to be served by the relief Mr Atkinson seeks which is: 1. An order directing the Western Australian Registry of the Federal Court of Australia to accept the application. 2. An order directing the Western Australian District Registry of the Federal Court to refer all future applications by [Mr Atkinson] to a judge of the Federal Court for the purpose of deciding whether the applications should be accepted or rejected. 3 It is necessary to examine the grounds of the application, together with the material in support.