Federal Court of Australia – Refusal (13 August 2024)

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
REGISTRY
A.B.N. 49 110 847 399

Your Ref:
Our Ref:

13 August 2024

Mr Jan Marek Kant
By email only: jmjarosz01@gmail.com

Dear Mr Kant,

Re: Documents presented for filing on 29 July 2024 (lodgement ID 1349519)

I refer to the Originating Application, Affidavit and Notice of a Constitutional Matter under section 78B submitted to the Victoria Registry of the Federal Court on 29 July 2024 (collectively, the Documents)

The Documents were referred to me as National Duty Registrar to review and determine whether they should be accepted for filing. I have decided that the Documents should be refused for filing in accordance with r 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (the Rule). These are my reasons for doing so.

The Rule provides that:

A Registrar may refuse to accept a document (including a document that would, if accepted, become an originating application) if the Registrar is satisfied that the document is an abuse of the process of the Court or is frivolous or vexatious:
a) on the face of the document; or
b) by reference to any documents already filed or submitted for filing with the document.

The Documents seek to commence an application under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), in the Court s original jurisdiction, seeking to have all warrants issued by the Commonwealth Attorney-General voided and to have the office of the Attorney-General permanently vacated.

After consideration of the Documents, I am of the view that they should not be accepted for filing pursuant to rules 2.26 of the Rules. I note that the meaning of the terms ‘frivolous’ and ‘vexatious’ was considered by Justice White in Ferdinands v Registrar Cridland [2021] FCA 592 at [27] to [30]. A matter that is ‘frivolous’ may be described as one that is ‘without substance or groundless or fanciful’. A proceeding will be appropriately described as ‘vexatious’ where, as set out by McKerracher J, ‘irrespective of the motive of the litigant, the proceeding is so obviously untenable or manifestly groundless as to be utterly hopeless’: Prior v South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council Aboriginal Corporation [2020] FCA 808 at [38].

I am satisfied that the relief sought in the Documents is without substance, groundless and fanciful, an d both frivolous and vexatious. Accordingly, I have refused the Documents for filing in accordance with the Rule.

If you disagree with this decision, it is open to you to make an application for judicial review of this decision under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth). I would encourage you to seek independent and professional legal advice on these matters.

The Documents are returned to you.

Yours sincerely,

Thomas Stewart
National Registrar