Bahonko v RMIT & Ors

[2007] HCATrans 524

[2007] HCATrans 524

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Melbourne       No M151 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

STANISLAWA BAHONKO

Applicant

and

ROYAL MELBOURNE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

First Respondent

MINISTER FOR EDUCATION OF THE STATE OF VICTORIA

Second Respondent

VICTORIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

Third Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GUMMOW J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 6 SEPTEMBER 2007, AT 9.11 AM  

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

__________________

GUMMOW J: This application arises out of the first respondent's refusal to grant the applicant a doctoral degree in education. The applicant alleged that this refusal was the result of discrimination on the grounds of race, disability, political opinion and religion, and she filed a series of complaints with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. On 9 June 2006, the Commission issued notices of termination pursuant to s 46PH(1)(c) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) as the applicant's complaints were trivial, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance.

The applicant then applied to the Federal Court pursuant to s 46PO of the Act for review of the Commission's termination of her complaints. On 11 October 2006, Weinberg J dismissed that application as it was made out of time. In addition, there was no substance to the applicant's claims as they lacked evidential support, and those claims relating to alleged political and religious discrimination were legally misconceived.

The applicant sought leave to appeal from the interlocutory decision of Weinberg J. That application was refused by Tracey J on 24 November 2006 as no error had been shown in Weinberg J's decision. The applicant's complaints about the conduct of the hearing before Weinberg J were also misconceived.

The application for special leave to appeal is embarrassing in the technical sense, and in any event does not advance any question of law that would justify the intervention of this Court. There are no prospects of success on any appeal to this Court.  Special leave is refused with costs.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application for special leave with costs.  I publish the disposition signed by Justice Heydon and myself.  Pursuant to order 4 of the orders made by Crennan J on 2 February 2007 we order that the applicant pay the costs of the first respondent of the summons issued on 8 January 2007.

AT 9.13 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED