Gaye Luck v University of Southern Queensland

GAYE LUCK
v
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN QUEENSLAND & ANOR
[2015] HCASL 136
M116/2014

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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court was asked to consider an application by Gaye Luck for special leave to appeal against the orders of the Full Court of the Federal Court. The original application was seeking judicial review of decisions made by the University of Southern Queensland regarding the applicant's enrolment in and suspension from a Bachelor of General Studies course. The applicant alleged that the university's officers were officers of the Commonwealth, that there was bias on the part of the judge, and that the Full Court had erred in its interpretation of "enactment". The application for special leave was considered under the relevant rules of the High Court because the applicant was not legally represented.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant's application met the criteria for special leave to appeal, and whether the applicant's arguments had any merit. The applicant sought to challenge the Full Court's decision to dismiss her application for judicial review on the basis of competency, and also sought to challenge the Full Court's conclusion that there was no apprehended bias on the part of the judge. The court had to consider whether the applicant's arguments had any merit, and whether they were sufficient to warrant special leave to appeal.

The court found that the application did not meet the criteria for special leave to appeal. The court found that the applicant's arguments were without merit and that the Full Court's conclusions were correct. The court found that the applicant's complaint of bias was misconceived, and that the Full Court's conclusions as to the objection to competency were plainly correct. The court found that there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the Full Court's conclusions, and that the application for special leave to appeal should be dismissed. The court directed the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

The final orders of the court were that the application for special leave to appeal be dismissed, and that costs be paid by the applicant. The court found that the application did not advance any reason to doubt the correctness of the Full Court's conclusions, and that there was no merit in the applicant's arguments. The court found that the applicant's complaint of bias was misconceived and that the Full Court's conclusions as to the objection to competency were plainly correct. The court dismissed the application and ordered the applicant to pay costs.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established