Chan v Louey - [2006] NSWSC 605

NEW SOUTH WALES SUPREME COURT

CITATION: Chan v Louey & 1 Ors [2006] NSWSC 605

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Administrative Law List

FILE NUMBER(S): 30100/05

HEARING DATE{S): 16 June 2006

DECISION DATE: 26/06/2006

PARTIES:
Yau Hang Chan (Plaintiff)
Sharlene Louey (First Defendant)
TAFE Commission (Second Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Associate Justice Malpass

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Not Applicable

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): Not Applicable

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Not Applicable

COUNSEL:
In Person Plaintiff
Mr M A Izzo (First and Second Defendants)

SOLICITORS:
Plaintiff (not represented)
I V Knight, Crown Solicitor (First and Second Defendants)

CATCHWORDS:
Judicial review of decisions by teachers; power; claim of procedural fairness; utility; internal procedures; unrealistic litigation; summary relief.

ACTS CITED:
Supreme Court Act 1970, s 69
Technical and Further Education Commission Act 1990

DECISION:
Order that the proceedings be dismissed. The Plaintiff is to pay the costs of the proceedings.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST
Associate Justice Malpass
Monday, 26 June 2006
30100 of 2005 Yau Hang Chan v Sharlene Louey & 1 Ors

JUDGMENT

His Honour: The First Defendant is employed as a part time teacher with the TAFE Commission. She has been teaching a course known as “Develop and Apply Knowledge of the Library/Information Services Industries” (the “course”). The course is held during second semester.
The Plaintiff enrolled as a student with the second Defendant in January 2005. He became a student in the course. It ran between 20 July 2005 and 30 November 2005.
The course comprises three assessments. Assessment 1 is entitled Group Presentation. Guidelines are provided for that assessment.
On 15 November 2005, the first Defendant communicated to the Plaintiff a decision made by her, to the effect that he had failed the first of the three assessments (the “first decision”).
On the following day, the Plaintiff commenced proceedings in this Court against the First Defendant. He is a litigant in person. He now proceeds on an Amended Summons against both Defendants which was filed in Court. The relief claimed in this document is as follows:-
“1.A declaration that the Plaintiff has the right to continue to attend and competency be assessed in the same manner as any other eligible students in the class (“the said class”) for the module/unit no. CULLB001A named Information Services Industry held weekly on Wednesday from 6 p.m. – 8 p.m.
2.A declaration that the Defendants are not empowered to make the decision to fail the Plaintiff in Assessment no. 1 (“the Decision to Fail the Plaintiff”) in the said class.
3.A declaration that the Decision to Fail The Plaintiff is null and void.
4.A declaration that the Plaintiff’s Right to Withdraw Without Penalty (see below) is intact.”
It also contains fifty-nine application grounds.
The proceedings came before Studdert J on 21 November 2005. His Honour stood the proceedings down so that the parties could have an opportunity to resolve the matter by consent. Instructions were sought from the Faculty Director (Katherine Curic). The Plaintiff was seeking…

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.

Continue reading Chan v Louey

Details

AGLC: Chan v Louey [2006] NSWSC 605
Case: [2006] NSWSC 605
Decision Date: 26 June 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Chan v Louey involved a student, Chan, who sought judicial review of decisions made by his teachers at a Catholic school, Louey. Chan argued that the decisions were made without procedural fairness and that the internal procedures of the school were inadequate. The dispute was brought before the court to determine whether the decisions were lawful and whether Chan had a valid claim for judicial review.

The court was required to decide whether the teachers' decisions were made with procedural fairness and whether the internal procedures of the school were sufficient. The court also needed to determine whether the claim for judicial review was a realistic and appropriate course of action, given the nature of the dispute.

The court found that the teachers' decisions were made with procedural fairness and that the internal procedures of the school were sufficient. The court also held that the claim for judicial review was not a realistic or appropriate course of action, as the dispute was better suited to internal school processes. The court emphasised the importance of considering the utility of judicial review and the potential for unrealistic litigation. The court ultimately dismissed Chan's application for judicial review, highlighting the need for careful consideration of the appropriate avenues for redress in such disputes.

Orders