Background
Kellan Reynolds sought leave to file notices of appeal from a judgment dismissing two judicial-review proceedings. Those proceedings concerned decisions by Federal Court registrars not to accept documents for filing under r 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).
One proceeding challenged a registrar’s refusal to accept an application concerning proceedings in the Magistrates Court of Western Australia. The other challenged a second registrar’s refusal to accept an application under s 35A(5) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) for review of the first refusal. A duty filings judge had directed under r 2.27(f) that the proposed notices of appeal not be accepted without the Court’s leave, so Reynolds applied under r 2.27A.
The Court’s Holding
Jackson J dismissed both leave applications on the papers. The Court examined all 12 proposed grounds concerning the first proceeding and all seven concerning the second, concluding that none had a reasonable prospect of success. The primary judge had no obligation to cure deficiencies in Reynolds’s proposed originating applications or to identify a coherent case beneath their terms. The proposed grounds alleging legal error mischaracterised the primary judge’s reasoning, while the asserted apprehension of bias lacked any basis suggesting that extraneous considerations might reasonably have influenced the judge.
As to the proposed appeal involving s 35A(5), Reynolds did not overcome the central problem that the first registrar had exercised administrative power rather than delegated judicial power of the kind reviewable under that provision. The second registrar’s refusal on that basis meant that judicial review of the refusal was doomed to fail. Because both proposed appeals clearly lacked reasonable prospects of success, the Court refused leave without an oral hearing and dismissed the applications in WAD 357 of 2026 and WAD 358 of 2026.
Key Takeaways
- Leave to file proceedings restricted under r 2.27(f) may be refused where the proposed case clearly has no reasonable prospect of success.
- A judge is not required to repair an incoherent pleading or formulate a viable case for a litigant.
- Review under s 35A(5) concerns a registrar’s exercise of delegated judicial power, not an administrative filing decision.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the Federal Court’s screening function under rr 2.27 and 2.27A and confirms that leave may be determined on the papers when an applicant has had an opportunity to explain the application and the proposed proceedings are clearly untenable.
It also underscores the distinction between a registrar’s administrative filing powers and delegated judicial powers. That distinction can determine whether the statutory review mechanism in s 35A(5) is available at all.