Dongguang Li v Edith Cowan University

[2013] HCASL 57

DONGGUANG LI

v

EDITH COWAN UNIVERSITY

[2013] HCASL 57
P33/2012

1. The applicant was employed by the respondent as an academic.  The respondent instituted disciplinary proceedings against him and subsequently terminated his employment on 11 January 2011.  The applicant lodged complaints with the Commissioner for Equal Opportunity claiming that he had been unlawfully discriminated against, but those complaints were dismissed.  The complaints were referred for review to the State Administrative Tribunal ("the Tribunal"), which again dismissed the complaints.  The applicant appealed the Tribunal's decision to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.  The grounds of appeal included that the applicant was denied a Mandarin interpreter at the Tribunal hearing, and that the Tribunal failed to consider relevant evidence, including that the applicant had been suffering from a severe psychiatric condition when his employment was terminated. 

2. While proceedings in the Court of Appeal were on foot, the applicant filed an interim application in that court.  That application was dismissed with costs by Newnes JA on 24 July 2012.  The application alleged defamation of the applicant by the respondent arising from a website that displayed a photograph of him and a description of the employment dispute.  The applicant sought orders that the respondent remove the material from the website, issue a public apology and compensate him.  Newnes JA said the application was misconceived and held that the Court of Appeal had no power to grant the relief sought.  The orders proposed by the applicant were not interim in nature, rather they were directed to primary relief in respect of an unrelated defamation claim.

3. The applicant applied to the Court of Appeal for an extension of time in which to apply for a review of Newnes JA's decision.  On 12 October 2012, the Court of Appeal (Pullin and Murphy JJA) dismissed the application for an extension of time, along with the application for review.  Their Honours held that the applicant had failed to demonstrate any error in Newnes JA's decision.

4. The application for special leave to appeal to this Court contends that the applicant was denied procedural fairness in the Court of Appeal because he was refused the assistance of an interpreter.  The applicant does not address the conclusion of the courts below that the interim application was misconceived.  The application does not raise any question of law which would justify the grant of special leave.  

5. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. 

S.M. Kiefel
2 May 2013 S.J. Gageler