VID1432/2025 – Kant – Originating Application (30 October 2025)

NOTICE OF FILING AND HEARING

Filing and Hearing Details

Document Lodged: Originating Application for Judicial Review – Form 66 – Rule 31.01(1)
Court of Filing: FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA (FCA)
Date of Lodgment: 30/10/2025 7:05:49 PM AEDT
Date Accepted for Filing: 31/10/2025 10:51:37 AM AEDT
File Number: VID1432/2025
File Title: JAN MAREK KANT v PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR, FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Registry: VICTORIA REGISTRY – FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Reason for Listing: To Be Advised
Time and date for hearing: To Be Advised
Place: To Be Advised

Form 66
Rule 31.01(1)

Originating application for judicial review

No. of 2025

Federal Court of Australia
District Registry: Victoria
Division: General

JAN MAREK KANT
Applicant

PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR, FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Respondent

To the Respondent
The Applicant applies for the relief set out in this application.
The Court will hear this application, or make orders for the conduct of the proceeding, at the time and place stated below. If you or your lawyer do not attend, then the Court may make orders in your absence.
You must file a notice of address for service (Form 10) in the Registry before attending Court or taking any other steps in the proceeding.

Time and date for hearing:
Place:
The Court ordered that the time for serving this application be abridged to
Date:

2

The Applicant applies to the Court to review the decision of the Respondent or his subordinate, purportedly made by the National Registrar on 30 October 2025, that Documents lodged by the Applicant not be accepted for filing pursuant to 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

A statement of the terms of the decision, being a letter signed by the National Registrar and purporting to enclose documents presented by the Applicant, Re: Documents presented for filing (e-lodgement ID 1558785) on 29 October 2025, accompanies this originating application.

Details of claim
The Applicant is aggrieved by the decision because:

1. The Applicant has a bone fide cause of action that is not without substance nor groundless.
2. Remedy claimed by the Applicant is not in all of the circumstances fanciful, nor is a claim to such remedy inevitably destined to fail.
3. No respondent to the refused proceeding can be vexed.
4. The Federal Court refusing to hear the matter denies to the Applicant his right of bringing proceedings to enforce the law.
5. The Federal Court refusing to hear the matter denied the Applicant justice.

Grounds of application

1. The Federal Court refusing to hear the matter is so unreasonable that no reasonable person could so exercise a power conferred by law.
2. The decision is made in error of jurisdiction and is otherwise contrary to law.
3. The decision is not in accordance with 2.26 Federal Court Rules 2011.
4. An irrelevant consideration was taken into account.

Orders sought

1. An order requiring the documents be filed.

3

Service on the Respondent
It is intended to serve this application on the Respondent.

Date: 30 October 2025

Signed by Jan Marek Kant
Applicant

Telephone: 1300 720 980 FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Internet: www.fcfcoa.gov.au Level 17, Law Courts Building,
Queens Square, Sydney
NSW 2000

30 October 2025

Jan Marek Kant
3/33 Bewdley Street,
Ormond VIC 3204

By email: jmjarosz01@gmail.com

Dear Mr Kant,

Re: Documents presented for filing (e-lodgement ID 1558785) on 29 October 2025

I refer to the following documents presented for filing to the Victoria Registry of the Federal Court of Australia:

• Originating Application – (Form 15) dated 29 October 2025;
• Affidavit of Jan Marek Kant sworn on 29 July 2024; and
• Statement of Claim – (Form 17) dated 29 October 2025

(Collectively ‘the Documents’).

The Documents have been referred to me as the National Duty Registrar to consider whether the Registry should accept the documents for filing, having regards to the procedural requirements of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (the Rules).

Pursuant to rule 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (the Rules), a Registrar may refuse to accept a document if satisfied that it constitutes an abuse of the Court s process or is frivolous or vexatious, either on the face of the document or by reference to any documents already filed or submitted for filing.

In Ferdinands v Registrar Cridland [2021] FCA 592, White J dealt with a review of a registrar’s decision made under r 2.26 of the Rules. At [29], White J quoted approvingly from the judgment of McKerracher J in Prior v Southwest Aboriginal Land and Sea Council Aboriginal Corporation [2020] FCA 808, where McKerracher J discussed the meaning of the terms vexatious and frivolous appearing in r 26.01(1) of the Rules. McKerracher J said:

1 of 2

[35] The expressions scandalous, vexatious and frivolous can be used either separately, or in
conjunction, or interchangeably, with the expression abuse of process of the court …

(36] A matter is frivolous and vexatious where the cause of action is one which on the face of it is
clearly one which no reasonable person could properly treat as bona fide, and contend that he had a
grievance which he was entitled to bring before the court …

[37] In relation to the term frivolous:

(a) matter that is frivolous may be described as one that is without substance or groundless or fanciful …;

(b) proceeding will be frivolous where, despite whatever attempts are made to discern a cause of action in the case, it is still not arguable …; and

(c) frivolous may also describe a situation where a party is trifling with the Court or wasting the Court’s time …

In Ferdinands, White J held that a matter that is frivolous and vexatious will be one that 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. (at [30]).

The term abuse of process includes an application which has no cause of action properly stated and no prospects of success. While there are no closed categories of what amounts to an abuse of process, that concept captures attempts to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court on bases that are confused or untenable: Re Young (2020) 94 ALJR 448 at 451 [13]; 376 ALR 567 at 570.

I have carefully considered the content of the documents as they are presently lodged, I have determined the Documents should not be accepted for filing. I am of the view that the Documents on the face are an abuse of process, frivolous and vexatious and inevitably destined to fail if it was to be accepted for filing.

Any application seeking to review this decision can be done in compliance with rule 31.01 and 31.03 of the rules.

I recommend that you seek legal advice prior to filing any further documents with the Court.

Yours sincerely

Stuart Young
National Registrar

2 of 2

Form 15
Rules 8.01(1); 8.04(1)

Originating application

No. of 2025

Federal Court of Australia
District Registry:
Division: General

JAN MAREK KANT
Applicant

DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY and another
Respondent

To the Respondent
The Applicant applies for the relief set out in this application.

The Court will hear this application, or make orders for the conduct of the proceeding, at the time and place stated below. If you or your lawyer do not attend, then the Court may make orders in your absence.

You must file a notice of address for service (Form 10) in the Registry before attending Court or taking any other steps in the proceeding.

Time and date for hearing:
Place:
The Court ordered that the time for serving this application be abridged to
Date:

2

Details of claim
On the grounds stated in the statement of claim, accompanying affidavit or other document prescribed by the Rules, the Applicant claims:

1. Against the First Respondent: An injunction requiring the First Respondent produce, to the Applicant, all records of information about the Applicant and/or his affairs that are in the possession, custody or power of the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States – under 121(2) Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014
2. Alternatively, Against the First Respondent: An injunction requiring the First Respondent produce, to the Applicant, all records of information about the Applicant that are in the possession, custody or power of the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States – under 121(2) Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014
3. Alternatively, Against the First Respondent: An injunction requiring the First Respondent produce, to the Applicant, all records of personal information about the Applicant that are in the possession, custody or power of the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States – under 121(2) Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014
4. Against the First Respondent: Ordinary damages in respect of arbitrary interference with the privacy of the Applicant by the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States – under 12B(2) Privacy Act 1988
5. Against the First Respondent: Exemplary damages, in amount as the Court may deem to be appropriate in all of the circumstances, in respect of arbitrary interference with the privacy of the Applicant by the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States – under 12B(2) Privacy Act 1988
6. Against the Second Respondent: An injunction requiring the Second Respondent do all of the things necessary to cause the First Respondent to produce, to the Applicant, all records of information about the Applicant and/or his affairs that are in the possession, custody or power of the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States – under 121(2) Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014
7. Alternatively, Against the Second Respondent: An injunction requiring the Second Respondent do all of the things necessary to cause the First Respondent to produce, to the Applicant, all records of information about the Applicant that are in the possession, custody or power of the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States – under 121(2) Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014
8. Alternatively, Against the Second Respondent: An injunction requiring the Second Respondent do all of the things necessary to cause the First Respondent to produce, to the Applicant, all records of personal information about the Applicant that are in the

3

possession, custody or power of the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States – under 121(2) Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014

Claim for interlocutory relief
The Applicant also claims interlocutory relief.

1. A direction allowing the originating application and accompanying documents be served by sending the documents by postal mail.
2. A direction reserving costs of the interlocutory relief.

Applicant’s address
The Applicant’s address for service is:
Place: 3/33 Bewdley Street, Ormond VIC 3204
Email: jmjarosz01@gmail.com
The Applicant’s address is 3/33 Bewdley Street, Ormond VIC 3204.

Service on the Respondent
It is intended to serve this application on all Respondents.

Date: 29 October 2025

Signed by Jan Marek Kant
Applicant

4
Schedule

No. of 2025

Federal Court of Australia
District Registry: Victoria
Division: General

Respondents
Second Respondent: AUSTRALIAN INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

Date: 29 October 2025

Form 17

Rule 8.05(1)(a)

Statement of claim

No. of 2025

Federal Court of Australia
District Registry: Victoria
Division: General

JAN MAREK KANT
Applicant

DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY and another
Respondent

Semantics

1. A provision of Schedule 1 to Privacy Act 1988 is an Australian Privacy Principle (APP) or a subclause thereof.
2. The Protective Security Policy Framework (PSPF) is the policy framework referred to in paragraph 90.5(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.
   Particulars
   The PSPF Release 2025 is available to the public via protectivesecurity.gov.au
3. The meaning of sensitive information is that of Privacy Act 1988.
4. The meaning of personal information is that of Privacy Act 1988.
5. The meaning of holds is that of Privacy Act 1988.

Applicant

6. The Applicant is a natural person.
7. The Applicant is and was at material times known as Jan Marek Kant.
8. The Applicant was at other material times known as Jan Marek Jarosz.
9. The Applicant resides in Victoria.
10. The Applicant at a material time resided in South Australia.

2

11. The Applicant brings this proceeding pursuant to 39B(1) Judiciary Act 1903, 39B(1A) Judiciary Act 1903, 19(1) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 and 12B(2) Privacy Act 1988.

First Respondent

12. The First Respondent is the head of the organisation known as the Central Intelligence Agency.
13. Distinction between the Central Intelligence Agency and its Director is arbitrary in this proceeding.
14. The First Respondent is an officer of the executive government of the United States.
15. The First Respondent is an APP entity in Privacy Act 1988.
16. The First Respondent has an Australian link in Privacy Act 1988.
17. The First Respondent is a regulated entity in 12B(1) Privacy Act 1988.

Second Respondent

18. The Second Respondent is the Information Commissioner in 3A Australian Information Commissioner Act 2010.
19. The Second Respondent is the Commissioner in 6(1) Privacy Act 1988.
20. The Second Respondent is the head of the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner in 5(1) Australian Information Commissioner Act 2010.
21. Distinction between the Australian Information Commissioner and his Office is arbitrary in this proceeding.
22. The Second Respondent is an APP entity in Privacy Act 1988.
23. The Second Respondent is a regulated entity in 12B(1) Privacy Act 1988.

Material Facts
First Respondent

24. In and before 2020 the First Respondent collected information about the Applicant at locations not within territorial limits of Australia.
    Particulars
    i. Agents of the First Respondent collected information about the Applicant at Pattaya City in Thailand.
    ii. Further particulars may be provided after discovery.
25. The First Respondent arbitrarily collected information about the Applicant at locations not within territorial limits of Australia.

3

Particulars
i. An agent of the First Respondent who goes or went by the name of Bijian in the performance of the duties of his employment procured from the Applicant, at an establishment that is or was known as Ruby Club, on the street known as Soi 6 in Central Pattaya, of which the said agent purports or did purport to be proprietor, information about the Applicant’s views concerning the said agent’s stated desire or intention to engage in sexual relations with a third person who is or was the sister of a fourth person who at an earlier time was the Applicant’s partner.
ii. Further particulars may be provided after discovery.

26. In 2018 and since the First Respondent collected information about the Applicant at otherwise than at locations not within territorial limits of Australia.
    Particulars
    i. The First Respondent collected information about the Applicant in the course of a joint operationconducted with the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation.
    ii. Further particulars may be provided after discovery.
27. In 2018 and since the First Respondent arbitrarily collected information about the Applicant otherwise than at locations not within territorial limits of Australia.
    Particulars
    Particulars may be provided after discovery.
28. In 2023 and 2024 the Applicant disclosed information about himself to the First
    Respondent.
    Particulars
    i. The Applicant contacted the First Respondent via the webform at cia.gov/contact-cia
    ii. The Applicant provided his name and contact information and other information about himself.
29. In April 2024 the Applicant requested the First Respondent provide him with access to information the First Respondent has about him.
    Particulars

4

The Applicant contacted the First Respondent via the webform at cia.gov/contact-cia

30. In May 2024 the Applicant complained to the First Respondent about conduct of the First Respondent.
    Particulars
    i. The Applicant contacted the First Respondent via the webform at cia.gov/contact-cia
    ii. The Applicant s message was directed to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Officer.
    iii. The complaint included a complaint of the First Respondent not provided a response to the April 2024 request.
    iv. The complaint included an indication by the Applicant that a result of the 2024 request was unsatisfactory.
31. In May 2024 the Applicant requested the First Respondent provide him with access to information the First Respondent has about him and his affairs (collective the CIA information).
    Particulars
    i. The Applicant contacted the First Respondent via the webform at cia.gov/contact-cia
    ii. The Applicant s message was directed to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Officer.
    iii. The Applicant restated his earlier request for access to information about him.
    iv. The Applicant requested also access to information about his affairs.
32. The First Respondent has not given the Applicant access to information about him.
33. The First Respondent, in arbitrarily collecting information about the Applicant, caused the Applicant to experience displeasure.

Second Respondent

34. The Applicant has requested the Second Respondent do all of the things necessary to cause the First Respondent to produce, to the Applicant, all records of information about the Applicant and/or his affairs that are in the possession, custody or power of the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States (the Request).
    Particulars

5

A request in writing were produced to the Respondent, in accordance with common law requirements of s.80W Privacy Act 1988 claims to remedy as stated in Kant v Australian Information Commissioner (2024), together with service of the originating application and documents filed in accompaniment to it.

35. The Second Respondent has not complied with the Request.
36. All of the things necessary to cause the First Respondent to produce, to the Applicant, all records of information about the Applicant and/or his affairs that are in the possession, custody or power of the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States does not include the Second Respondent examining those records.

Questions of law

37. The PSPF Guidelines are lex specialis in the PSPF
    Particulars
    The PSPF Release 2025 Guidelines are available to the public via protectivesecurity.gov.au
38. sensitive information includes personal information to which a classification of Official: Sensitive is applied or would be applied in accordance with the PSPF by a person who originates it.
39. The injury to feelings threshold of Privacy Act 1988 is not the emotional distress threshold of Schedule 2 of that Act.
40. injury to feelings in meaning of Part IIIA and Part V of Privacy Act 1988 includes experience of displeasure.
41. s.80W Privacy Act 1988 empowers the Federal Court to makes injunctions as claimed by the Applicant.
42. The Federal Court is by law empowered as necessary to order all remedy as claimed by the Applicant.
43. The Second Respondent is by law empowered as necessary to do all of the things necessary to cause the First Respondent to produce, to the Applicant, all records of information about the Applicant that are in the possession, custody or power of the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States.
44. Requiring the First Respondent produce to the Applicant also information about his affairs is appropriate remedy with respect to the First Respondent having refused or

6

failed to produce, on request made by the Applicant, records of personal information about him.

Conclusions of law
First Respondent

45. The First Respondent collected personal information about the Applicant by means including lawful means.
46. The First Respondent in breach of APP 3.5 collected personal information about the Applicant by unfair means.
47. The First Respondent in breach of APP 3.5 collected sensitive information about the Applicant by unfair means.
48. The First Respondent in breach of APP 12.1 refused or failed to give the Applicant access to information.
49. The First Respondent in contravention of s.15 Privacy Act 1988 collected personal information about the Applicant.
50. The First Respondent in contravention of 12B(2) Privacy Act 1988 collected personal information about the Applicant.
51. Alternatively: The First Respondent in contravention of Privacy Act 1988 collected personal information about the Applicant.
52. The First Respondent in contravention of s.15 Privacy Act 1988 collected sensitive information about the Applicant.
53. The First Respondent in contravention of 12B(2) Privacy Act 1988 collected sensitive information about the Applicant.
54. Alternatively: The First Respondent in contravention of Privacy Act 1988 collected sensitive information about the Applicant.
55. The First Respondent in contravention of s.15 Privacy Act 1988 refused or failed to give the Applicant access to information.
56. The First Respondent in contravention of 12B(2) Privacy Act 1988 refused or failed to give the Applicant access to information.
57. Alternatively: The First Respondent in contravention of Privacy Act 1988 refused or failed to give the Applicant access to information.

Second Respondent

7

58. The Second Respondent holds all records that were subject of the Applicant’s request of the First Respondent.
    Particulars
    The records became held by the Second Respondent on his receipt of the written request referred to in paragraph 34 above.
59. The Second Respondent is in breach of APP 12 so long as he refuses to do all of the things necessary to cause the production to the Applicant of all records of the CIA information.
60. Alternatively: The Second Respondent is in breach of APP 12 so long as he refuses to do all of the things necessary to cause the production to the Applicant of all records of information within the subset of the CIA information which is information about the Applicant.
61. Alternatively: The Second Respondent is in breach of APP 12 so long as he refuses to do all of the things necessary to cause the production to the Applicant of all records of information within the subset of the CIA information which is personal information about the Applicant.
62. The Second Respondent contravenes the provisions of Privacy Act 1988 so long as he refuses to do as the Applicant requested of him.
63. The Second Respondent contesting this proceeding is refusal by him to do as the Applicant requested of him.

Remedy

64. The Applicant claims injunctive relief as stated in the originating application.
65. The Applicant claims damages as stated in the originating application.

Interlocutory relief

66. Service of the originating application and accompanying documents on the First Respondent by postal mail is conformant with laws of the United States.
    Particulars
    28 U.S. Code 1391 (US) and 4(i) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (US) allow originating process be served on the First Respondent and the United States by postal mail.

Date: 29 October 2025

Signed by Jan Marek Kant
Applicant

This pleading was prepared by Jan Marek Kant, Applicant

Form 59
Rule 29.02(1)

Affidavit

No. of 20

Federal Court of Australia
District Registry: Victoria
Division: General

JAN MAREK KANT
Applicant

DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY and another
Respondents

Affidavit of: Jan Marek Kant

Address: 3/33 Bewdley Street, Ormond VIC 3204
Occupation: litigant
Date: 29 July 2024

I, Jan Marek Kant of 3/33 Bewdley Street, Ormond VIC 3204, litigant, affirm:

1. I am the Applicant.
2. I make this affidavit in support of my claim to interlocutory relief.
3. It is not practicable from me to serve documents personally on the First Respondent in this proceeding.

Affirmed by the deponent
at Melbourne
in Victoria
on 29 July 2024

Before me:

Signature of witness