› Review of administrative decisions of court registrars
Administrative law
› Grounds of review
› Legal unreasonableness and bad faith
Quick Take
1A registrar's decision under r 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 to refuse to accept a document for filing is administrative in character and is not an exercise of delegated judicial power under s 35A(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976; accordingly, it is not amenable to review under s 35A(5) or r 3.11, but is reviewable under the ADJR Act.
2Documents grounded in pseudolaw theories — including 'strawman duality' claims, assertions of dual natural-person/trustee-executor capacity, and incoherent invocations of constitutional jurisdiction — are properly characterised on their face as an abuse of process, frivolous or vexatious for the purposes of r 2.26.
3Even where jurisdictional error in a registrar's r 2.26 decision were established, a court exercising judicial review would ordinarily decline discretionary relief where it independently forms a firm view that the documents are on their face an abuse of process or frivolous or vexatious, and would similarly decline to direct filing under rr 1.37 or 3.04.
Case Details
Citation[2026] FCA 1291
CourtFCA
JurisdictionCommonwealth
Unlock so much more with Barrister AI
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
