Chandrasekaran v Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists

The case of Chandrasekaran v Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists involves Dr Chandrasekaran, who is seeking an extension of time and leave to appeal against an interlocutory order made by the primary judge. This order dismissed her proceeding as an abuse of process, and required her to pay costs to the College. The Federal Court was tasked with determining whether the application for an extension of time and leave to appeal should be granted, considering the merits of Dr Chandrasekaran's case and the need to avoid substantial injustice.

The court needed to consider the principles governing the grant of leave to appeal, as established in Bienstein v Bientstein. Specifically, the applicant must show that the decision in question is attended with sufficient doubt and that substantial injustice will result from a refusal of a grant of leave. In this case, the court assessed whether Dr Chandrasekaran had articulated any reason to doubt the correctness of the primary judge's orders, and whether any substantial injustice would result from a refusal of leave to appeal. The court also considered the established principles for granting an extension of time, which include assessing the strength of the case on the merits and whether the case should proceed fairly to the parties. The court concluded that Dr Chandrasekaran had not established sufficient doubt about the correctness of the primary judge's orders and that no substantial injustice would result from a refusal of leave to appeal.

The Federal Court dismissed the application for an extension of time and leave to appeal. The court found that Dr Chandrasekaran had not provided any evidence of financial difficulties and that her assertion that it would be difficult to pay the costs was insufficient. The court also held that the primary judge's order dismissing the proceeding as an abuse of process was interlocutory, as it did not finally resolve any rights or causes of action. As such, the court found that Dr Chandrasekaran had not met the threshold for leave to appeal and that the application should be dismissed with costs.

ORDERS:
1. The application for an extension of time and leave to appeal be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs.