Chandrakanthi Sluggett v The Commonwealth
[2013] HCASL 59
CHANDRAKANTHI SLUGGETT
v
THE COMMONWEALTH
[2013] HCASL 59
A33/2012
The applicant complained to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) in October 2007 that she had been subject to discrimination on the grounds of her disability (post-polio syndrome) in her employment with various Commonwealth agencies. HREOC terminated the complaint holding that it was without substance.
The applicant commenced proceedings on her complaint in the Federal Magistrates Court (Brown FM)[1]. The hearing occupied 31 days. In a lengthy judgment, Brown FM rejected the many particulars of the applicant's complaint. His Honour concluded that the respondent's conduct over the course of its employment relationship with the applicant was not discriminatory[2]. He expressed "grave concerns about the reliability of much of [the applicant's] evidence in the proceedings"[3]. His Honour found that the applicant had used "her undoubted familiarity with the mechanisms of complaint as an instrument of intimidation against the respondent and its agents"[4]. The application was dismissed.
[1]Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth), s 46PO.
[2]Sluggett v Commonwealth [2011] FMCA 609 at [722]-[724].
[3]Sluggett v Commonwealth [2011] FMCA 609 at [294].
[4]Sluggett v Commonwealth [2011] FMCA 609 at [728].
An appeal to the Federal Court of Australia (Lander J) on numerous grounds was dismissed.
The applicant applies for special leave to appeal. No question of law suitable for the grant of special leave is identified in the application and supporting material. Nothing in the applicant's summary of argument calls into question the correctness of Lander J's decision. If special leave to appeal were granted the appeal would have no prospect of success.
The application is dismissed.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.
V.M. Bell
8 May 2013S.J. Gageler