COLIN GEORGE DUNSTAN v ROBYN ORR & ANOR - Round 3

 Documents filed in FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA 

COLIN GEORGE DUNSTAN v ROBYN ORR & ANOR 

Round 3

In Round 2 the Federal Court of Australia received an application lodged on 23 June 2024, and had not made any decision - to either accept or reject it for filing - 10 days later. 

This is an unprecedented delay to make a decision that usually is made in one or two days.

The page summarising the state-of-play in Round 2 ended with: 

The application refers to a Federal Court of Australia judgment in which the Commissioner of Taxation, coincidentally a respondent in this application, was successful as the applicant in the original jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Australia. The Commissioner of Taxation was allowed to make an application to have decision by the Full Court of the Federal of Australia set aside without lodging an appeal:

• Leave to appeal is not necessary, and
• The Federal Court of Australia has the power to grant the relief requested.

(Refer to Commissioner of Taxation v Rawson Finances Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 617 at [62] and [57].)

The surprising action by the Federal Court of Australia to obstruct a legal proceeding is described in an email to Commissioner of Taxation's legal representative: Federal Court of Australia's failure to process an application, 3 July 2024.

Round 3 began with a surprising development. The closer you look at the evidence, the more intriguing this development is. 

Document forgery

If you enjoy testing your detective skills against Hercule Poirot’s unique style of detection, with his combination of logical deduction, hands-on investigation, and intuition - a collection of evidence is available here: 

Originating Application for Judicial Review of Decision - lodged 11/07/2024

Supplementary Affidavit for Interlocutory Application - lodged 18/07/2024 

Hint.
The Judicial Registrar said to have made the decision has over 20 years' experience working at the Federal Court of Australia. The decision contains basic mistakes he would not make.

This summary is what to look for in the clues amongst the evidence: 

1. There is a strong prima facie case that a document purported to be a decision made by a Judicial Registrar of the Federal Court of Australia has been forged.
2. This alleged forging of a decision by a Judicial Registrar removes an obstacle to the parties in the present proceedings ACD72 of 2023 being compelled to conduct a hearing on the question of leave to appeal with the prospect of a Full Court hearing of an appeal to follow.
3. In the absence of the alleged forging of the decision, the question of leave to appeal does not arise. The prospect of a Full Court hearing of an appeal to follow also does not arise.
4. The application that was rejected for filing with the allegedly forged decision is in the original jurisdiction of the Court. When accepted for filing, there is no question of leave to be decided, and the matter can be concluded in a hearing before a single judge. No hearing before the Full Court is needed.
5. It is likely that a valid decision was made to accept the application for filing shortly after it was lodged on 23 June 2024, and only then was a plan set in motion to forge the second decision to reject the application.

Further Reading

"150 ATO officials investigated in GST fraud scheme", 13 February 2024

Respondents to the application were responsible for the design, security and operation of the GST system.