Case: Legal Aid Commission of Western Australia v Edwards (1982) 42 ALR 154
Outcome: distinguished
There is a line of authority, to which Deputy President Walker referred, concerning whether a determination that a court should accept documents for filing, or reject them as an abuse of the court's processes, falls within the phrase "decision of an administrative character" in the ADJR Act . In Legal Aid Commission of Western Australia v Edwards (1982) 42 ALR 154 , Toohey J held that a decision of a deputy registrar of the Family Court of Western Australia to reject an application for taxation of a bill of costs, on the ground that the court did not have jurisdiction to deal with a dispute between the Legal Aid Commission and the solicitors for a legally aided party, was a decision of an administrative character. At 158-159, his Honour pointed out that the decision was not made under the direction of the court, apparently meaning under the direction of a judge. By contrast, in Letts v Commonwealth (1985) 8 FCR 585 at 586-587, Toohey J held that a registrar of the High Court, who sought the direction of a justice with respect to an attempt to file initiating process, had not made a decision of an administrative character. At 587, his Honour said: The Registrar was in truth exercising the jurisdiction of the High Court to control frivolous or vexatious applications, a jurisdiction that may be exercised through officers of the court as well as justices. His Honour distinguished Edwards on the basis that the decision the subject of Edwards "was not readily susceptible of review by a judge of that Court." 74 It appears to follow from the Full Court's judgment that both the decision of the registrar to seek a direction of a judge, and the decision of the judge to direct the registrar, are decisions of an administrative character. Unfortunately, the Full Court does not seem to have had the benefit of citation of the apparently contrary view of Toohey J in Letts . In Paramasivam v Randwick City Council [2005] FCA 369 , Sackville J took the view that he was bound by Bizuneh to decide that both the registrar seeking a direction of a judge, and the judge giving the direction, pursuant to O 46 r 7A of the Federal Court Rules , made decisions of an administrative character. At [31]-[39], his Honour referred to Edwards , Letts and Bizuneh. At [40]-[41], his Honour drew attention to the fact that the Full Court had not referred to Letts , and expressed doubts about the correctness of the reasoning in Bizuneh , whilst acknowledging that it was binding on him. His Honour made orders adding as respondents to the proceeding before him the deputy registrar who had made the decision to seek the direction of a judge and the judge who gave the direction to refuse to accept the documents. Subsequently, in Paramasivam v Randwick City Council (No. 2) [2005] FCA 508 , effectively by consent, Sackville J set aside both the decision to seek a direction, and the direction, on the ground referred to in s 5(1)(d) of the ADJR Act , apparently on the basis that his Honour had foreshadowed in the first judgment at [43]-[51]. This was that both the registrar and the judge had taken into account other documents previously filed by the same applicant, whereas O 46 r 7A requires that the originating process "appears...on its face to be an abuse of the process of the Court or to be frivolous or vexatious."