Rana v Registrar Cridland [2021] FCA 848

Federal Court of Australia

Rana v Registrar Cridland [2021] FCA 848 File number: SAD 43 of 2021

Judgment of: WHITE J

Date of judgment: 27 July 2021

Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – application for judicial review of a Registrar's decision to reject documents for filing pursuant to r 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – consideration of s 5(2)(b) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) – whether the Registrar failed to take into account a relevant consideration – whether a viable cause of action enlivening the jurisdiction of the Court apparent on the face of the documents – application upheld.

Legislation: Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) s 5 Australian Consumer Law ss 18, 20, 21 Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Sch 2 Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39B Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (Cth) s 9(3) Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) ss 36, 37, 89-94 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 2.26 Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) s 23 Defamation Act 2005 (SA) s 21

Cases cited: Bizuneh v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 42; (2003) 128 FCR 353 Burgundy Royale Investments Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation [1987] FCA 686; (1987) 18 FCR 212 Crosby v Kelly [2012] FCAFC 96; (2012) 203 FCR 451 Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56; (2002) 210 CLR 575 Ferdinands v Registrar Cridland [2021] FCA 592 Frigger v Trott [2021] FCA 18 Nyoni v Murphy [2018] FCAFC 75; (2018) 261 FCR 16 Paramasivam v Randwick City Council [2005] FCA 369 Rana v Google Australia Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 60 Rana v Google Inc [2016] FCA 461 Rana v Google Inc (No 2) [2017] FCA 17 Rana v Google Inc [2017] FCAFC 156 Somasundaram v Luxton [2020] FCA 1076 SZVCP v Cho [2017] FCA 310; (2017) 250 FCR 225