Background
The Independent Commission Against Corruption petitioned for a sequestration order against Martin Otto Waterhouse’s estate, relying on assessed costs orders and his alleged failure to comply with a bankruptcy notice. Waterhouse, a solicitor appearing for himself, opposed the petition with allegations of systemic corruption involving judges and public officials.
Waterhouse lodged an interlocutory application asserting that every Federal Court judge was affected by bias and seeking “special arrangements” under which outside jurists would hear the bankruptcy case, with appointments proposed to be made by the Chairman of the International Commission of Jurists. After the document was accepted for filing, questions concerning its removal under the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) were referred to the Full Court.
The Court’s Holding
The Full Court held that the interlocutory application was an abuse of process and would be removed administratively from the Court file under r 2.28(1)(c). Allocation and assignment of Federal Court cases are matters for the Chief Justice under s 15(1AA) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). Individual judges, including a Full Court, cannot make orders controlling the composition of the Court, and litigants cannot dictate who will determine their cases.
The application was entirely without an arguable jurisdictional foundation because it sought relief that Waterhouse could not seek and that the judges had no authority to grant. The Court explained that a litigant who objects to an assigned judge must make a properly founded recusal application to that judge; alleging bias does not place a filing beyond the Court’s administrative controls.
The Court also struck out the portions of Waterhouse’s grounds of opposition that demanded the proposed special arrangements and ordered him to pay ICAC’s related costs. It did not determine the underlying creditor’s petition, which remained unheard.
Key Takeaways
- A document already accepted for filing may be removed under r 2.28(1)(c) when it is clearly an abuse of process.
- A judge’s removal of such a document based on the Court’s satisfaction under r 2.28(1)(c) is an administrative act; no separate removal order is required.
- Litigants cannot control judicial allocation and must raise properly founded objections through a recusal application after a judge has been assigned.
Why It Matters
The decision clarifies the distinction between judicial orders governing filed material and the Federal Court’s administrative supervision of its records. It confirms that procedural fairness may require an opportunity for submissions, but plainly untenable filings need not receive a full judicial hearing merely because they allege bias or corruption.
The ruling also reinforces judicial independence in case allocation: parties may identify relevant associations for the Chief Justice’s consideration, but they cannot seek orders selecting judges or prescribing special appointment arrangements.