Gaye Luck v University of Southern Queensland

[2015] HCASL 136

GAYE LUCK

v

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN QUEENSLAND & ANOR

[2015] HCASL 136
M116/2014

1. The applicant seeks special leave to appeal against the orders of the Full Court of the Federal Court (Murphy, Pagone and Perry JJ) made on 15 October 2014 dismissing an appeal from the orders of Tracey J dismissing an application for review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) and the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) of four decisions made by or on behalf of the first respondent relating to the applicant's enrolment in and suspension from a Bachelor of General Studies course offered by the first respondent.

2. Tracey J upheld an objection to competency of the application on the basis that the decisions were not made under an Act of the Commonwealth Parliament, and that there was no officer of the Commonwealth against whom relief was sought.  Tracey J also refused to recuse himself for apprehended bias and to adjourn the hearing of the application.

3. The Full Court held that Tracey J did not err in refusing to recuse himself or in refusing to adjourn the hearing of the application and did not err in dismissing the application.

4. The applicant has filed two summonses seeking leave to amend her written case and to amend the special leave application.  She presses her complaint that the first respondent's officers were officers of the Commonwealth for the purpose of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), that Tracey J was affected by apprehended bias because of his role as Judge Advocate General of the Commonwealth and that the Full Court erred in its interpretation of "enactment" for the purposes of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth).

5. As the applicant does not have legal representation, the application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004.

6. The application for special leave, whether as at present constituted or as proposed to be amended, does not advance any reason to doubt the correctness of the conclusions reached by the Full Court of the Federal Court.  In particular, the applicant's complaint of bias was and is misconceived and Tracey J's and the Full Court's conclusions as to the objection to competency were plainly correct.

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

G.A.A. Nettle
3 September 2015 M.M. Gordon