Background
The applicant, Tosson Mahmoud, attempted to file documents with the Federal Court on 27 November 2025, alleging various criminal offenses against several respondents, including the Inspector-General in Bankruptcy and the Australian Financial Security Authority. The documents also sought declarations, pecuniary remedies, and removal from office for the respondents. The Duty Registrar of the Federal Court decided to reject these documents for filing, communicating this decision via email on 3 December 2025. The Registrar’s reason was that the documents, on their face, alleged criminal offenses over which the Federal Court lacked jurisdiction under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).
Mahmoud sought judicial review of this decision. Under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (ADJR Act), an application for judicial review must be lodged within 28 days of the decision, meaning by 31 December 2025. However, Mahmoud’s application for an extension of time to lodge the judicial review application was made almost five months after this deadline, on 27 May 2026.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Jackman of the Federal Court refused Mahmoud’s application for an extension of time to lodge his judicial review application. The Court applied well-established principles regarding extensions of time under the ADJR Act, emphasizing that an extension will not be granted unless the Court is positively satisfied it is proper to do so, and an acceptable explanation for the delay is a precondition. The mere absence of prejudice to the respondent is not sufficient to justify an extension.
The Court found Mahmoud’s explanations for the approximately five-month delay to be inadequate. These explanations included attempts to see the Duty Judge, difficulties in securing legal representation due to lawyers being on holiday or demanding large upfront fees, extensive complaints to numerous individuals and entities (including King Charles III and the UN), and health issues. The Court determined that these purported reasons did not justify the significant delay beyond the 31 December 2025 deadline.
Furthermore, the Court noted that a vexatious proceedings order had previously been made against Mahmoud in the Supreme Court of New South Wales in 2015. This raised the question of whether the Federal Court should, on its own initiative, make a vexatious proceedings order against him under the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). The Court therefore refused the extension of time and ordered Mahmoud to file affidavits and submissions on the question of a vexatious proceedings order by 27 August 2026, with a hearing scheduled for 2 September 2026.
Key Takeaways
- Applications for extensions of time in judicial review under the ADJR Act require a positive justification and an acceptable explanation for any delay.
- General complaints to external parties or difficulties in securing legal aid without specific details are typically insufficient to justify significant delays.
- Courts may proactively consider making vexatious proceedings orders, especially when there is a history of such orders against an applicant in other jurisdictions.
- Registrars have the authority to reject filings if the court lacks jurisdiction over the alleged subject matter.
Why It Matters
This decision underscores the Federal Court of Australia’s strict adherence to procedural deadlines for judicial review applications, highlighting that even in cases involving unrepresented litigants, a compelling and detailed explanation is required for any significant delay. It reinforces that the 28-day statutory limit for seeking judicial review is not to be easily disregarded.
Moreover, the Court’s proactive step to consider a vexatious proceedings order against the applicant, citing a prior order from another jurisdiction, demonstrates the judiciary’s commitment to managing court resources and preventing abuse of process. This serves as a warning to frequent litigants that courts will take measures to address vexatious conduct, protecting the integrity of the legal system and other parties from undue burden.