Lee v La Trobe University - [2024] VSC 472

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S ECI 2024 01311

BETWEEN:

WILLIAM LEE	Plaintiff
v
LA TROBE UNIVERSITY	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Irving AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	11 June 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	12 August 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Lee v La Trobe University
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 472

---

JUDICIAL REVIEW – Judicial review under Order 56 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) to set aside La Trobe University’s sanction decision against the plaintiff - Extension of time within which to commence proceeding – No special circumstances made out – Application dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
The Plaintiff in person
For the Defendant	Mr L Howard of counsel	Lander & Rogers

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction................................................................................................................................... 1
Material relied upon by the parties............................................................................................ 2
Relevant principles....................................................................................................................... 2
Factors relevant to establishing special circumstances............................................................ 6
The period of delay............................................................................................................. 6
The reason for the delay..................................................................................................... 6
Whether Mr Lee has an arguable case.............................................................................. 8
Justice to both parties, including prejudice................................................................... 11
The public interest in finality of litigation..................................................................... 12

Conclusion on whether Mr Lee has established special circumstances justifying an extension of time...................................................................................................................................... 12
Application for summary judgment........................................................................................ 12
Conclusion.................................................................................................................................... 13

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Mr Lee is a student undertaking a Masters of Teaching (Secondary) at La Trobe University. As part of one subject in his course Mr Lee undertook a teaching placement for which, on 23 November 2023, he was assessed as ‘does not meet expectation’. Successful completion of the placement was a ‘hurdle requirement’ of the subject. As a result of his placement assessment Mr Lee received an Ungraded Fail for the subject. Mr Lee called this the ‘sanction decision’.

On 6 December 2023 Mr Lee made a complaint to the University’s Student Conduct and Investigations Team seeking to appeal the assessment decision. On 20 December 2023 the Team informed Mr Lee that the assessment decision would be upheld.

On 17 January 2024 Mr Lee sought a review of the assessment decision from the University Ombudsman. On 13 February 2024 the University Ombudsman informed Mr Lee that the University had followed the correct procedures in coming to the assessment decision.

On 14 March 2024, some 112 days after the University gave Mr Lee notice of his assessment, Mr Lee commenced a proceeding seeking judicial review under Order 56 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Rules). Mr Lee’s application seeks that the University’s sanction decision (and prior and subsequent decisions) be set aside. Under r 56.02 a proceeding under Order 56 must be commenced within 60 days after the date when grounds for the grant of the relief or remedy claimed first arose and that time limit cannot be extended by the Court except in special circumstances.

These reasons relate to the summons filed by La Trobe University seeking orders that:

(a) an extension of time for Mr Lee to commence his proceeding be…

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.

Continue reading Lee v La Trobe University

Details

AGLC: Lee v La Trobe University [2024] VSC 472
Case: [2024] VSC 472
Decision Date: 12 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Lee v La Trobe University involves an application for judicial review of a decision made by La Trobe University to sanction the plaintiff, Mr Lee. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, with the plaintiff seeking to set aside the university's sanction decision. The application for judicial review was made under Order 56 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic). A significant issue in the case was whether the court should grant an extension of time to Mr Lee to commence the proceeding, as he had missed the statutory time limit for filing his application.

The court was required to decide whether Mr Lee had demonstrated special circumstances that would justify an extension of time. According to rule 56.02(3) of the Supreme Court Rules, an extension of time can be granted if the plaintiff can show special circumstances that prevent them from commencing the proceeding within the statutory time limit. The court had to examine Mr Lee's circumstances to determine if he had made out a case for an extension of time. In its reasoning, the court found that Mr Lee had not demonstrated any special circumstances that would warrant an extension of time. The court was satisfied that Mr Lee had not acted with the requisite degree of diligence to justify an extension of time, and therefore dismissed the application for an extension of time.

In its final orders, the court dismissed the proceeding as Mr Lee had not been granted an extension of time. The court requested that the parties confer on the question of costs and indicated that if the parties were unable to reach an agreement on costs within seven days, the matter would be relisted for oral submissions on costs. The court's decision in this case highlights the importance of acting with diligence when bringing a judicial review application and the strict requirements for obtaining an extension of time.

Orders

Orders of the court

Conclusion

46. I have determined that Mr Lee should not be granted an extension of time because he has not demonstrated special circumstances within the meaning of r 56.02(3). I will make orders dismissing the proceeding.

47. My preliminary view is that Mr Lee should pay the University’s costs on a standard basis. I request that the parties confer on the question of costs. If the parties are unable to reach agreement on the question of costs within seven days of the date of these reasons, the proceeding will be relisted for oral submissions on costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.