Louise Hu v Stansure Strata Pty Ltd

LOUISE HU
v
STANSURE STRATA PTY LTD & ORS
[2014] HCASL 201
B36/2014

The applicant is the owner of an apartment in a strata title scheme. She complained to the Australian Human Rights Commission that the first respondent had unlawfully discriminated against her on the ground of her race[1]. Subsequently, the applicant commenced proceedings in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (Judge Burnett) arising out of the determination of that complaint.
[1]Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), ss 9(1), 9(2), 10(1), 11, 12(1)(d) and 18C.
On 14 May 2014, Judge Burnett dismissed the application. His Honour found the applicant to be an "inherently implausible and unreliable witness" who presented as "delusional and detached from reality"[2]. Judge Burnett was not satisfied that the incidents alleged by the applicant occurred or, if they did, that they had a racial dimension to them.
[2]Hu v Stansure Strata Pty Ltd [2014] FCCA 905 at [17].
On 18 July 2014, the Federal Court of Australia (Rangiah J) dismissed the applicant's appeal.
The applicant now seeks special leave to appeal. She does not have legal representation and her application falls to be determined under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth).
The application was not filed within time[3]. The relatively short delay is not explained in the applicant's affidavit.
[3]High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), r 41.02.1.
The discursive proposed grounds of appeal and the written case do not disclose any basis for calling into question the correctness of Rangiah J's judgment. If special leave to appeal were granted, the appeal would have no prospect of success. For this reason, there is no utility in an order enlarging the time in which to bring the application.
The application is dismissed.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5, we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

V.M. Bell
10 December 2014 S.J. Gageler

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court is an application by Louise Hu for special leave to appeal a decision of the Federal Court of Australia. The applicant, an owner of an apartment in a strata title scheme, had previously complained to the Australian Human Rights Commission regarding alleged discrimination on racial grounds by the first respondent, Stansure Strata Pty Ltd. Following this complaint, the applicant brought proceedings in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, which were dismissed by Judge Burnett. The applicant subsequently appealed to the Federal Court of Australia, where the appeal was dismissed by Rangiah J. The applicant now seeks special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia, though she does not have legal representation and her application falls under rule 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth).

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant's application for special leave to appeal was filed within the prescribed time and whether there was any basis for questioning the correctness of Rangiah J's judgment. The court examined the proposed grounds of appeal and the written case, noting that the application was not filed within the required time and that the applicant did not provide an explanation for the relatively short delay. Furthermore, the court found that the proposed grounds of appeal and the written case did not provide any basis for questioning the correctness of Rangiah J's judgment. The court concluded that if special leave to appeal were granted, the appeal would have no prospect of success, and therefore, there was no utility in an order enlarging the time in which to bring the application.

The court dismissed the application for special leave to appeal. The court noted that the applicant did not provide any explanation for the delay in filing the application, and that the proposed grounds of appeal and the written case did not provide any basis for questioning the correctness of Rangiah J's judgment. The court found that there was no utility in an order enlarging the time in which to bring the application, and therefore dismissed the application. The court directed the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. The court's decision was made by V.M. Bell and S.J. Gageler on 10 December 2014.

The final orders of the court were that the application for special leave to appeal was dismissed, and that the Registrar was directed to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. The court found that the application was not filed within the required time, and that there was no basis for questioning the correctness of Rangiah J's judgment. The court concluded that there was no utility in an order enlarging the time in which to bring the application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established