Dear Federal Court of Australia,

I am not seeking copies of any affidavits filed or otherwise.

I am seeking copies of any correspondence related to affidavits affirmed by PHILLIP CHARLES SWEENEY [Interested Person] to or from the Registrar (other than correspondence with Mr Sweeney).

This includes any correspondence related to the removal or attempted removal of these affidavits from the Case File.

Yours faithfully,

Phillip Sweeney

Dear Federal Court of Australia,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Federal Court of Australia's handling of my FOI request 'Documents Related to the Registration of Affidavits for NSD1654/2018'.

Justice Yates made an order on the 19 September 2019 to remove five affidavits from the Court File that confirmed that ASIC had given an undertaking to the Honourable Justice Kenny in VID 323 of 2011 which relates to a Defined Benefit occupational pension scheme now administered by NULIS Nominees (Australia) Ltd - one of the respondents in NSD 1654/2018.

These affidavits were affirmed (and not sworn) on:

(a) 1 May 2019;
(b) 1 August 2019;
(c) 5 August 2019;
(d) 21 August 2019; and
(e) 26 August 2019

There was no order made with respect to an affidavit affirmed on 16 September 2019 which included Annuxure PCS52 which was a copy of the article titled "Serial pest hijacks ASIC's case against NAB over fees scandal" and Annexure PCS53 which was a copy of a post on social media promoting the article in the Australian Financial Review which read:

"ICYMI Serial pest who bombarded ASIC with hundreds of request signed Pussy Galore and Goldfinger hijacks landmark fees-for-no-service case against NAB @asicmedia"

There was no order made with respect to an identical affidavit affirmed on 7 October 2019 which contained copies of the same articles.

Yet these affidavits were returned to the "Interested Person" so that James Frost could avoid being called to account for his clear Contempt in the fact of the Court by way of two publications that were not fair and accurate reporting of proceedings afoot in the Federal Court in NSD 1654 of 2018.

No other order was made with respect to other documents lodged by the "Interested Person" including an interlocutory application relating to a Contempt in the face of the Court by a publication by James Frost a reporter for the Australian Financial Review who published an article titled "Serial pest hijacks ASIC's case against NAB over fees scandal" which references NSD 1654/2018.

Even though no order was made by Justice Yates with respect to the interlocutory application and related Affidavit containing a copy of this defamatory and intimidatory article these documents were returned to me TWICE.

The only covering letter was from a junior employee named "Megan" who would not be acting without instruction from more senior administrative personal.

Therefore such an administrative instruction outside of the ruling of Justice Yates would fall within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) as it applies to the Federal Court of Australia.

This is clearly now a matter of some public interest with respect to the administration of justice in the Federal Court of Australia.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/d...

Yours faithfully,

Phillip Sweeney