Ivins v James Cook University - [2001] QCA 464

[2001] QCA 464

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P
THOMAS JA
AMBROSE J

Appeal No 1350 of 2001

CHRISTINE JOY IVINS Appellant

JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 24/10/2001

JUDGMENT

THE COURT RESUMED AT 11.32 A.M.

THE PRESIDENT: This is an appeal from an order of a Judge of the trial division dismissing the appellant's application for judicial review with costs.

The appellant represents herself. The grounds of her appeal are as follows:

"(a)Procedural defects and procedural fairness.

(b)Acting in excess of jurisdiction regarding making a judgment.

(c)Improper exercise of power as the Justice acted for an improper purpose and in bad faith when she fraudulently considered irrelevant issues.

(d)Improper exercise of power as the Justice considered irrelevant fraudulent evidence and did not consider relevant evidence, e.g. contractual thus making no evidence available.

(e)Improper exercise of power as the Justice made a decision in the absence of evidence and thus in excess of jurisdiction.

(f)Improper exercise of power due to an improper delegation as the matter was dealt with by inexperienced staff.

(g)Improper exercise of power as the Justice acted under dictation as emphasis on disruptive behaviour and time limits is a mechanical application of policy given that the matter had been reviewed internally."

She seeks the following orders:

"(a)That I am awarded my degree as per my contract without prejudice or penalty.

(b)That the respondent pays remuneration for all expenses incurred so far and any costs deemed appropriate by the Court."

She added in her oral submissions a request that this Court order that the respondent negotiate with her to enable her to finish her degree.

The orders sought are inappropriate for this Court to make in an appeal from an order dismissing an application for judicial review.

At best for the appellant, the orders that could be made by this Court are orders overturning the decision before the primary Judge and instead ordering an extension of time within which to lodge the application for judicial review.

The appellant filed the application for judicial review on 27 November 2000 and on 16 January 2001 the respondent filed an application to dismiss the application for judicial review on the following grounds: first that the application was made out of time and no reason is shown why time should be extended; second, no reasonable basis for the application is disclosed; and third, the application is frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process of Court.

The learned trial Judge found it necessary to largely consider only the first point and granted the application on the basis that the application was out of time and the time should not be extended. The relevant facts are set out in the primary Judge's reasons and it is not necessary to repeat all of them.

Essentially, the appellant is upset because a lecturer said to her, in a workshop, that he thought she was behaving in a passive-aggressive manner. The workshop did not progress smoothly and the appellant was asked to leave.

The applicant was dissatisfied…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ivins v James Cook University and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2001] QCA 464
Decision Date: 24/10/2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Ivins v James Cook University, the appellant, Christine Joy Ivins, pursued an appeal against the respondent, James Cook University, before the Court of Appeal. The primary issue at hand was the dismissal of the appellant's application for judicial review, which sought an extension of time to lodge the application, as well as the awarding of her degree and reimbursement of expenses. The appellant's appeal was grounded on various allegations, including procedural defects, improper exercise of power, and acting under dictation. The court was tasked with determining whether the trial judge's decision to dismiss the application for judicial review was justified and if the appellant's claims of procedural unfairness, bad faith, and other improprieties had merit.

The court meticulously examined the appellant's claims and found that her application for judicial review was fundamentally flawed both in form and substance. The application did not clearly identify the decision or failure to decide that it sought to challenge, nor did it provide a reasonable basis for the review. The court further found that the appellant had not demonstrated any good reason to justify the significant delay in lodging the application, which was beyond the permissible timeframe. The appellant's arguments regarding alleged fraud, discrimination, and bad faith were deemed unsubstantiated and without merit. The court concluded that the trial judge was correct in dismissing the application on the basis that the appellant had not shown sufficient grounds for extending the time limit.

In light of the findings, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the appellant's application for judicial review. The judges found no error in the trial judge's decision and rejected the appellant's various claims of procedural unfairness and other improprieties. The court held that the appellant had failed to establish any valid grounds for overturning the trial judge's decision, and the appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

Orders