Harding v University of NSW

[1999] NSWCA 58

CITATION:	Harding v University of NSW [1999] NSWCA 58
FILE NUMBER(S):	CA 40651/99
HEARING DATE(S):	5 February 1999
JUDGMENT DATE:	5 February 1999
PARTIES :	Kathleen Harding v The University of New South Wales
JUDGMENT OF:	Meagher JA at 1; Sheller JA at 11; Powell JA at 13

COUNSEL:	Claimant: self Opponent: S.W. Gibb
SOLICITORS:	Claimant: self Opponent: Bartier Perry
CATCHWORDS:	Notice of Motion - utility of orders - failure of reasons to reconsider
DECISION:	dismissed with costs

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL

040651/91

MEAGHER JA
SHELLER JA
POWELL JA

Friday, 5 February 1999

KATHLEEN HARDING v THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES

JUDGMENT

1 MEAGHER JA: Mrs Harding made an application to the University of New South Wales Appeal Committee in January of 1989 and that committee gave a decision adverse to her in March 1989. It decided that Mrs Harding should not be permitted to re-enrol in first year medicine for two years and that she should thereafter have to compete for re-enrolment.
2 This result was not congenial to Mrs Harding and she took action. She sought prerogative relief against the university and that matter was heard by Mr Justice McInerney who gave judgment on 11 October 1991.
3 He dismissed her application. His Honour found that there was no error in the conduct of the appeal by the university's appeal committee.
4 Mrs Harding then brought an appeal to this Court against Mr Justice McInerney's decision.
5 We were of the view that his Honour was wrong in that there was one irregularity and it was an irregularity which resulted in the appeal committee's decision being invalid and void. We said so in the plainest terms.
6 However we could not uphold the appeal because we were of the view that there was no useful order which we could make.
7 The application which Mrs Harding had made to the university was an application to enrol in the faculty of medicine for the year 1989. That application was rejected. She in effect asked us to make an order of the kind which the committee should have made, that is to say, she was asking us to make an order that the University of New South Wales should admit her in the faculty of medicine in 1989 but we did not hear the case until 1993. It is not surprising under these circumstances that we decided there was no useful order we could make in her favour.
8 The notice of motion which we have heard today upon which Mrs Harding has said everything that can usefully be said on her behalf, is that her appeal should be reconsidered. In my view she has not demonstrated in any way that the decision which we reached in 1993 is incorrect, nor has she demonstrated that there are any reasons why we should reconsider it.
9 I might add that in between our original decision in 1993 and today, Mrs Harding has had numerous skirmishes with the University and has made many complaints which might or might not be justified about the irregularities of the university's procedures. She has also conducted quite extensive litigation in this Court before various judges. Despite implicit invitations to do so, we have declined to give any consideration, either to her skirmishes with the University or her litigation in this Court other than to the extent which I have indicated simply on the grounds that it would be irrelevant.
10 In those circumstances with some regret I am afraid that in my view, there is only one order that can be made, namely that the notice of motion be dismissed with costs.
11 SHELLER JA: I agree.
12 POWELL JA: As do I.
13 MEAGHER JA: The order of the Court therefore is the notice of motion is dismissed with costs.