Towle v Registrar Young [2026] FCA 485 — Administrative Law Application Dismissed

Original Word Document (77 KB) Federal Court of Australia

Towle v Registrar Young [2026] FCA 485

| File number(s): | SAD 236 of 2025 |

| Judgment of: | O'SULLIVAN J |

| Date of judgment: | 23 April 2026 |

| Catchwords: | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — application for judicial review of decision made by Registrar, under r 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), to refuse to accept for filing an application for judicial review of a decision made by Registrar to refuse to accept for filing a notice of appeal from proceedings summarily dismissed — where Registrar refused to accept documents for filing on grounds that they were an abuse of process of the Court or were frivolous or vexatious — application dismissed |

| Legislation: | Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), rr 2.26, 26.01(1) |

| Cases cited: | Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63; (2000) 205 CLR 337

Ferdinands v Registrar Cridland [2021] FCA 592

Nyoni v Murph y [2018] FCAFC 75; (2018) 261 FCR 164

Prior v South W est Aboriginal Land and Sea Council Aboriginal Corporation [2020] FCA 808

Re Young [2020] HCA 13; (2020) ALR 567

Towle v Commonwealth of Australia [2025] FCA 832 |

| Division: | General Division |

| Registry: | South Australia |

| National Practice Area: | Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights |

| Number of paragraphs: | 19 |

| Date of hearing: | Determined on the papers |

| Counsel for the Applicant: | Applicant appearing in person |

| Counsel for the Respondent: | The respondent filed a submitting notice |
ORDERS

| SAD 236 of 2025 |

| BETWEEN: | THOMAS WILLIAM RAYMOND TOWLE

Applicant | |
| AND: | REGISTRAR STUART YOUNG

Respondent | |

| order made by: | O'SULLIVAN J |
| DATE OF ORDER: | 23 April 2026 |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application for judicial review, dated 24 October 2025, is dismissed.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

O’SULLIVAN J:

1 On 24 July 2025, the applicant, Mr Thomas William Raymond Towle, had proceedings in another matter summarily dismissed with judgment entered for the first and second respondents: Towle v Commonwealth of Australia [2025] FCA 832 (SAD 179/2024).

2 On 22 August 2025, Mr Towle attempted to file a Notice of Appeal, which was rejected by a Registrar of this Court.

3 On 16 September 2025, Mr Towle attempted to file an application for judicial review against the Registrar’s refusal to accept the Notice of Appeal for filing. The documents sought to be filed for the purpose of the review application comprised of:

(a) an originating application dated 14 September 2025 – Form 66;

(b) an affidavit of Thomas William Raymond Towle affirmed on 15 September 2025; and

(c) an email dated Friday 22 August 2025 (together, the Documents).

4 On 7 October 2025, a Registrar of this Court determined not to accept the Documents for filing because the documents were an abuse of process, frivolous and/or vexatious and destined to fail if they were to be accepted for filing (Decision).

5 By a further originating application dated 24 October 2025, Mr Towle now seeks judicial review “of the decision by the Federal Court National Registrar to refuse acceptance for filing of an Application for Review relevant to a Notice of Appeal from a single Judge in matter SAD179/2024 which was also rejected for filing. The Registrar determined the documents were an abuse of process, frivolous, vexatious, and destined to fail if accepted for filing.”

6 With the consent of the applicant, this matter was considered on the papers. Having considered the documents and Mr Towle’s written application, the Registrar was correct to reject the documents as an abuse of process and/or frivolous or vexatious such that the application for judicial review is dismissed.

Principles

7 Pursuant to r 2.26 of the F ederal C ourt R ules 2011 (Cth), a Registrar may refuse to accept documents for filing if satisfied that they constitute and abuse of the Court’s process or are frivolous or vexatious, either on the face of the documents themselves or by reference to related materials already before the Court. When refusing to accept documents for filing, the Registrar is performing an administrative function that is subject to review by this Court: Nyoni v Murph y [2018] FCAFC 75; (2018) 261 FCR 164.

8 In Ferdinands v Registrar Cridland [2021] FCA 592 at [29], White J referred to the discussion by McKerracher J in Prior v South W est Aboriginal Land and Sea Council Aboriginal Corporation [2020] FCA 808 at [35]-[38] as to the meaning of “frivolous” and “vexatious” appearing in FCR 26.01(1), before concluding: at [30] that “ … a proceeding will be frivolous and vexatious if, amongst other things, it is based on a cause of action which no reasonable person could properly treat as bona fide or if it is without substance, groundless, or fanciful.”

The Decision

9 The Registrar considered established principles in reaching the Decision. Further, the Registrar noted there are no closed categories of what may amount to an abuse of process in the sense that the term should be understood to capture attempts to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction on untenable or confused bases: Re Young [2020] HCA 13 at [13]; (2020) ALR 567.

Consideration

10 It is tolerably clear that the Documents rejected for filing relate to an application to review the previous decision of a Registrar to reject documents relating to the Notice of Appeal in SAD 179/2024.

11 Mr Towle contends that he is aggrieved by the Decision on 37 grounds. Broadly speaking, Mr Towle asserts that the Decision was unreasonable, procedurally unfair and biased, particularly given his lack of legal representation, and the Registrar’s application of procedural rules.

12 The grounds vary from being somewhat comprehensible in that headings are provided, however in those cases there is no comprehensible basis to support the alleged grounds. The repeated invocation of “unreasonableness” which appears throughout the document is largely rhetorical.

13 Allegations of apprehended bias that are made within the document do not delineate any basis for such an allegation as articulated in Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63; (2000) 205 CLR 337.

14 Whereas the applicant appears to rely upon several grounds under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth), the grounds are not clearly outlined, and a number of the other grounds are incomprehensible.

15 The application is structured as a lengthy narrative interspersed with personal reflection, moral commentary and philosophical quotations. These include references to empathy in legal practice, in particular a quote attributed to a Chief Judge of a Municipal Court in the United States of America and commentary on the nature of power and justice.

16 The application frequently references a lack of legal representation, limited literacy, and physical and mental health challenges. However, as best I can determine, they do not provide any basis to quash the Registrar’s Decision.

17 The matters raised span events over a number of years, and the documents the subject of the Decision appear to conflate historical grievances, including Tribunal proceedings from 2019 and Federal Court applications from 2023 and 2025.

18 It is for these reasons that the Registrar’s Decision was correct in that the documents constitute an abuse of process, are properly characterised as frivolous and/or vexatious and are manifestly untenable such that if accepted for filing, they are destined to fail.

19 The application to review the Decision not to accept documents for filing must be dismissed.

| I certify that the preceding nineteen (19) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice O'Sullivan. |
Associate:

Dated:    23 April 2026