The Court held that a Registrar exercising the power under r 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules to refuse documents for filing must assess the substance of all causes of action disclosed by the documents as a whole, not merely the form used or the most prominent claim. The Registrar erred by characterising the proposed proceeding solely as an ADJR Act application when the documents also disclosed common law causes of action (misfeasance in public office, unlawful detention) potentially engaging federal jurisdiction under s 39B(1A)(b) of the Judiciary Act. The Court left open whether the Federal Court in fact has jurisdiction over constitutional tort claims for damages against a State arising from allegedly void State court orders, holding that question should be determined in open court with the benefit of submissions.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.