Gaye Luck v Principal Officer of Department of Justice

[2014] HCASL 36

GAYE LUCK

v

PRINCIPAL OFFICER OF DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE & ANOR

[2014] HCASL 36
M108/2013

1. The applicant applied to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal ("the Tribunal") for review of the first respondent's refusal to grant her access to documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Vic). On 14 March 2013, the Tribunal struck out the application pursuant to s 78 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) on the basis that, by refusing to comply with a direction and by leaving the hearing, the applicant had conducted the proceedings vexatiously.

2. The applicant sought leave to appeal the Tribunal's decision in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Nettle and Ashley JJA).  On 24 May 2013, following a hearing at which the applicant did not appear, their Honours held that the Tribunal's decision was not productive of substantial injustice and refused the applicant leave to appeal.

3. On 14 June 2013, the applicant filed an application for special leave to appeal to this Court from the Court of Appeal's decision. On 12 July 2013, due to the applicant's failure to file a written case pursuant to r 41.10.4.1 of the High Court Rules 2004, the application for special leave was deemed abandoned.

4. On 16 July 2013, the applicant filed a summons seeking an extension of time to prepare and file her written case.  She did not appear at the hearing of the summons before a single Justice of this Court (Gageler J) on 5 August 2013.  Gageler J refused the applicant's application for an adjournment.  His Honour held that the decision of the Court of Appeal was one of discretion, made in the exercise of settled principles, and that reinstatement of the special leave application would be futile.  The summons was dismissed.

5. The applicant seeks leave to appeal to this Court from the decision of Gageler J.  She has filed a summons seeking leave to file an amended draft notice of appeal and written case.

6. It has been brought to our attention that the applicant sought an extension of time and foreshadowed the filing of further submissions.  That request has not been acceded to.  We do not consider that the interests of justice require a postponement of the decision in this case, particularly given the view we have formed of the matter.

7. This application concerns a matter of practice and procedure and the application of settled principles.  An appeal to this Court would enjoy no prospects of success.  Leave is refused.

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

S.M. Kiefel
6 March 2014 P.A. Keane