Clarke v South Eastern Sydney Local Health District

In the case of Clarke v South Eastern Sydney Local Health District, the applicant sought leave to appeal a decision of the primary judge that had refused leave to commence proceedings under section 46PO of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth). The primary judge had concluded that there was no sufficient doubt to warrant the grant of leave to appeal, and the application was dismissed. The applicant's grounds for appeal included allegations of miscarriages of justice, fraudulent conduct by the respondents, and procedural unfairness. The primary judge found that the applicant had not established any error in the primary judge's reasons and orders that would warrant the granting of leave to appeal. The applicant had filed three sets of written submissions, one for each matter, in which further grounds of appeal were alleged. However, much of the applicant's submissions were directed to the merits of what she alleges as her treatment by the respondents over the years, and not to establishing that the reasons for the discretionary judgment of the primary judge or the orders made, are such as to warrant the granting of leave to appeal.

The primary judge had considered the relevant legal principles to the application of the issues to be determined and found that there was no suggestion that there was any error in respect to those principles. The primary judge also noted that the applicant had a long history of proceedings instigated in other Courts and Tribunals directed to the same underlying factual complaints. The primary judge concluded that independent consideration had been given to the claims made by the applicant in one or other of these other proceedings, and that each of the decisions reached seemed to be a proper exercise of the power conferred. The primary judge also considered that the applicant's argument that she had been denied procedural fairness in each decision-making process was not supported by any evidence.

The court found that the applicant had not made out any error in the primary judge's reasons and orders that would warrant the granting of leave to appeal. The court also found that the applicant's submissions were not focused on establishing that the reasons for the discretionary judgment of the primary judge or the orders made, are such as to warrant the granting of leave to appeal. The court concluded that the application for leave to appeal should be dismissed. The applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the respondent, as agreed or taxed.

In summary, the court found that the applicant had not established any error in the primary judge's reasons and orders that would warrant the granting of leave to appeal. The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and ordered the applicant to pay the costs of the respondent. The court found that the applicant's submissions were not focused on establishing that the reasons for the discretionary judgment of the primary judge or the orders made, are such as to warrant the granting of leave to appeal. The court concluded that the application for leave to appeal should be dismissed.