FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| PARAMASIVAM v O'SHANE & ORS | [2005] FMCA 1686 |
| HUMAN RIGHTS – Racial discrimination – application for summary dismissal – Courts and magistrates – immunity from proceedings – acts in exercise of judicial function. |
| Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (C’th) ss.46P, 46PH, 46PO, 46PO(3) Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (C’th), s.9 Judicial Officers Act 1986 (NSW), s.44B Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, r 13.10 Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901 (NSW), s.4 Crimes (Sentencing Procedures) Act 1999 (NSW), s.11 Administrative Decisions Judicial Review Act 1977 (C’th) |
| Applicant: | GAJA LAKSHMI PARAMASIVAM |
| First Respondent: | PATRICIA O’SHANE |
| Second Respondents: | ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR NEW SOUTH WALES & STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES |
| File Number: | SYG1906 of 2005 |
| Judgment of: | Barnes FM |
| Hearing date: | 2 November 2005 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 22 December 2005 |
REPRESENTATION
| Applicant: | In Person |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Ms K Eastman |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Crown Solicitor’s Office |
ORDERS
The application filed on 30 June 2005 be dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.10(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG1906 of 2005
| GAJA LAKSHMI PARAMASIVAM |
Applicant
And
| O'SHANE & ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW SOUTH WALES & STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES |
Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This application
By application filed on 12 August 2005 the respondents seek an order that the proceedings commenced…
Continue reading Paramasivam v O'Shane & Ors
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Paramasivam v O'Shane & Ors [2005] FMCA 1686
- Case
- [2005] FMCA 1686
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Supreme Court Rules.
2.
The respondents are entitled to their costs of the application to be taxed on the standard basis.
The applicants, represented by Mr Paramasivam, sought to appeal a decision of the District Court of New South Wales in relation to a matter involving allegations of corruption against police officers. The respondents, represented by the Attorney General, sought to dismiss the appeal on the basis that the application did not comply with the relevant procedural requirements. The Supreme Court of New South Wales was tasked with determining whether the application complied with the relevant procedural requirements and, if not, whether the application should be dismissed.
The central issue before the court was whether the application complied with the relevant procedural requirements, specifically the requirement to file an affidavit verifying the service of the notice of appeal on each respondent. The court noted that the application did not contain such an affidavit, and the applicants had failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances that would justify the non-compliance. The court also considered whether the application should be dismissed on other grounds, such as the applicants' failure to provide a valid notice of appeal.
The court held that the application did not comply with the relevant procedural requirements, and there were no exceptional circumstances that would justify the non-compliance. The court further held that the application should be dismissed on the basis that the applicants had failed to provide a valid notice of appeal. The court noted that the failure to comply with the procedural requirements was a significant impediment to the court's ability to properly consider the merits of the appeal. The court concluded that the application should be dismissed, and the respondents were entitled to their costs of the application.
2.
The respondents are entitled to their costs of the application to be taxed on the standard basis.
The applicants, represented by Mr Paramasivam, sought to appeal a decision of the District Court of New South Wales in relation to a matter involving allegations of corruption against police officers. The respondents, represented by the Attorney General, sought to dismiss the appeal on the basis that the application did not comply with the relevant procedural requirements. The Supreme Court of New South Wales was tasked with determining whether the application complied with the relevant procedural requirements and, if not, whether the application should be dismissed.
The central issue before the court was whether the application complied with the relevant procedural requirements, specifically the requirement to file an affidavit verifying the service of the notice of appeal on each respondent. The court noted that the application did not contain such an affidavit, and the applicants had failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances that would justify the non-compliance. The court also considered whether the application should be dismissed on other grounds, such as the applicants' failure to provide a valid notice of appeal.
The court held that the application did not comply with the relevant procedural requirements, and there were no exceptional circumstances that would justify the non-compliance. The court further held that the application should be dismissed on the basis that the applicants had failed to provide a valid notice of appeal. The court noted that the failure to comply with the procedural requirements was a significant impediment to the court's ability to properly consider the merits of the appeal. The court concluded that the application should be dismissed, and the respondents were entitled to their costs of the application.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The application filed on 30 June 2005 be dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.10(a) of the
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.