Croker v Sydney Institute of TAFE & Anor

[2005] HCATrans 505

[2005] HCATrans 505

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S380 of 2004

B e t w e e n -

CLAYTON ROBERT CROKER

Applicant

and

SYDNEY INSTITUTE OF TAFE

First Respondent

UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY SYDNEY

Second Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

McHUGH J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 5 AUGUST 2005, AT 8.48 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

__________________

McHUGH J:   The applicant filed proceedings in the Federal Court that alleged that the respondents had breached the Disability Discrimination Act 1986 (Cth). The Federal Court transferred the matter to the Federal Magistrates Court. The Federal Magistrates Court granted an application that the first respondent filed to dismiss the proceedings against both respondents under O 13.10 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules on the ground that the applicant disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The applicant applied for leave to appeal the decision to the Federal Court.  The first respondent applied for orders that the proceedings be stayed unless the applicant provides security for costs.  Justice Bennett ordered the applicant to provide security for costs of the first respondent because it would be unjust to require the first respondent to contest the issues without the probability of obtaining costs.  Justice Bennett also gave leave for further written submissions to be filed.

Justice Emmett of the Federal Court dismissed the applicant’s notice of motion to set aside the judgment of Bennett J on the ground that there was no reason to disturb the decision of Bennett J.

The applicant’s special leave application complained that the decision of Emmett J is inconsistent with natural law, rules of natural justice, s 56(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Imp), the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 (UN) and the Declaration of Human Rights 1948 (UN).

An appeal has no prospects of success and does not raise a question of law of public importance.

The application is dismissed.

Under the power conferred by r 41.11.1 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order that the application is dismissed with costs.  I publish our joint reasons.

AT 8.48 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED