LI -v- EDITH COWAN UNIVERSITY [2012] WASCA 142

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2012] WASCA 142
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:	CACV:34/2012	Heard:	24 JULY 2012
Coram:	NEWNES JA	Delivered:	6/08/12
No of pages:	5	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Interim application dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	DONGGUANG LI EDITH COWAN UNIVERSITY
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Application for interim order in appeal Orders sought relate to issue unconnected with appeal Application dismissed
Legislation:	Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA), r 3
Case References:	Li and Edith Cowan University [2012] WASAT 72

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : LI -v- EDITH COWAN UNIVERSITY [2012] WASCA 142 CORAM : NEWNES JA HEARD : 24 JULY 2012 DELIVERED : 6 AUGUST 2012 FILE NO/S : CACV 34 of 2012 BETWEEN : DONGGUANG LI

Appellant

AND

EDITH COWAN UNIVERSITY

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : JUSTICE J A CHANEY (PRESIDENT)

Citation : LI and EDITH COWAN UNIVERSITY [2012] WASAT 72

File No : EOA 6 of 2012

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application for interim order in appeal - Orders sought relate to issue unconnected with appeal - Application dismissed

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA), r 3

Result:

Interim application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : Mr H H Jackson

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : Office of Legal Services

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Li and Edith Cowan University [2012] WASAT 72

(Page 3)

1 NEWNES JA: On 24 July 2012, I dismissed an application by the appellant for interim orders in the appeal in respect of what the appellant said was the publication by the respondent of material defamatory of him. I said I would provide reasons for my decision. These are the reasons.

2 To put the application in context it is necessary to describe briefly the background to the appeal.

3 The appellant was formerly employed by the respondent in an academic position. The present appeal has its origins in disciplinary proceedings which the respondent instituted against him. Those disciplinary proceedings ultimately led to the appellant's dismissal. The appellant then lodged various complaints with the Commissioner for Equal Opportunity alleging that he had been unlawfully discriminated against in the course of the disciplinary proceedings. The Commissioner concluded that the appellant's complaints of discrimination were misconceived and dismissed them. The appellant then required the Commissioner to refer the complaints for review by the State Administrative Tribunal under s 90 of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA).

4 The Tribunal found that the complaints of unlawful discrimination had not been made out and dismissed them: Li and Edith Cowan University [2012] WASAT 72. The appellant subsequently filed an appeal notice in this court, seeking leave to appeal against the Tribunal's decision.

5 The grounds of appeal are not…

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 Li v Edith Cowan 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: [2012] WASCA 142
Decision Date: 6 AUGUST 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Li v Edith Cowan University, the applicant sought interim orders from the court in relation to an appeal. The applicant's appeal to the Full Court was ongoing, but the interim orders sought were unrelated to the appeal. The respondent argued that the application should be dismissed because the orders sought were unrelated to the appeal and the court lacked jurisdiction to grant them. The applicant argued that the orders were necessary to protect their rights and interests, and the court should have the discretion to grant them. The court considered the scope of its jurisdiction in relation to interim applications and the principles governing the grant of interim orders in the context of an appeal. The court held that the orders sought were unrelated to the appeal and were not within the court's jurisdiction to grant. The court dismissed the interim application, finding that the applicant had not established a sufficient basis for the court to exercise its discretion in their favour.

The legal issues before the court were whether the orders sought were related to the appeal and whether the court had jurisdiction to grant them. The court considered the scope of its jurisdiction in relation to interim applications and the principles governing the grant of interim orders in the context of an appeal. The court held that the orders sought were unrelated to the appeal and were not within the court's jurisdiction to grant. The court found that the applicant had not established a sufficient basis for the court to exercise its discretion in their favour. The court dismissed the interim application. The court found that the orders sought were unrelated to the appeal and were not within the court's jurisdiction to grant. The court held that the applicant had not established a sufficient basis for the court to exercise its discretion in their favour.

Orders

Orders of the court

Interim application dismissed

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.