Ahamed v Victoria University - [2025] VSCA 66

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCI 2024 0124

MOHAMMAD SHOHEL AHAMED	Applicant
v
VICTORIA UNIVERSITY	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	WALKER JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	Determined on the papers
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	7 April 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 66
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2024] VSC 604 (K Judd J)

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Extension of time – Applicant sought judicial review of decision of University in relation to plagiarism in law essay – Application filed approximately 10 months out of time – Judge found no special circumstances to justify extension of time – No error of law in judge’s decision – Proposed grounds of appeal totally without merit – Application for leave to appeal refused.

Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015, r 56.02(3).

---

Counsel on the papers
Applicant:		In person
Respondent:		R Walsh
Solicitors
Applicant:	Not applicable
Respondent:	Meridian Lawyers

WALKER JA:

The applicant, Mr Ahamed, is a law student at Victoria University. In 2022 he submitted a research paper as part of his assessment in a constitutional law subject. Following a computerised analysis of the research paper, the University concluded that the paper had been substantially plagiarised. A senior officer of the University decided that Mr Ahamed should be reprimanded and cautioned, and that he should receive a grade of zero for the research paper. Mr Ahamed appealed to the University’s Student Appeals Panel. On 20 April 2023 the panel dismissed the appeal and confirmed the University’s original decision.
On 18 May 2023 Mr Ahamed submitted a complaint about the decision to the Victorian Ombudsman. On 1 June 2023, an officer of the Ombudsman informed Mr Ahamed that they did not consider that the University had made any error and that the Ombudsman did not have the ability to direct the University to reach a different decision.
On 4 June 2023, Mr Ahamed sent an email to the University informing it of the Ombudsman’s decision and stating that he was considering appealing the University’s decision to the Court. He said that he would wait five days before doing so, ‘to leave the floor open for any discussion’. On 6 June 2023, the University re-confirmed that the decision of the Student Appeals Panel was the final decision of the University and that the University considered the matter closed.
On 30 April 2024 Mr Ahamed filed an originating motion seeking judicial review in relation to the University’s assessment decision. He also filed an application for an extension of time in which to commence the proceeding. An extension of time was necessary because Order 56 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (the ‘Rules’) requires that an originating motion be filed within 60 days of the decision sought to be reviewed. Mr Ahamed’s originating motion was filed more than 12 months after the University’s Student Appeals Panel dismissed his appeal and confirmed the University’s original decision, and was thus around 10 months out of time.
On 24 September 2024, the trial…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ahamed v Victoria University and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] VSCA 66
Decision Date: 7 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ahamed, a former student of Victoria University, sought judicial review of the university’s decision to expel him for plagiarism in his law essay. The application for judicial review was filed approximately 10 months after the decision was made, which exceeded the 42-day limit for such applications. The judge dismissed the application for being out of time, finding no special circumstances to justify an extension. Ahamed sought leave to appeal this decision, arguing that the judge made an error in law by not granting an extension of time. The court considered the grounds for the appeal and found them to be without merit. The court concluded that there was no error of law in the judge’s decision and refused the application for leave to appeal.

The legal issues before the court were whether the judge made an error of law in dismissing Ahamed’s application for judicial review for being out of time, and whether there were special circumstances to justify an extension of time. The court considered the relevant provisions of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015, which set out the time limits for filing applications for judicial review. The court found that the judge did not make an error of law in dismissing the application for being out of time, and that there were no special circumstances to justify an extension of time. The court also found that Ahamed’s proposed grounds of appeal were without merit, as they did not challenge the judge’s decision on its merits, but rather sought to relitigate the same issues that were already decided by the judge.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the relevant legal principles and authorities on the issue of extensions of time for filing applications for judicial review. The court noted that extensions of time are only granted in exceptional circumstances, and that the onus is on the applicant to demonstrate such circumstances. The court found that Ahamed did not meet this burden, as he did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing his application. The court also found that Ahamed’s proposed grounds of appeal were not arguable, as they did not identify any error of law in the judge’s decision. The court concluded that there was no merit in the application for leave to appeal, and refused it accordingly.

The court’s decision in this case reinforces the importance of complying with time limits for filing applications for judicial review, and the need for applicants to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to justify an extension of time. The court also emphasised the importance of providing arguable grounds of appeal, and not merely seeking to relitigate the same issues that were already decided by the judge. The court’s decision in this case is likely to have implications for other applicants seeking extensions of time for filing applications for judicial review, and for the formulation of grounds of appeal in such cases.

Orders