Paramasivam v Shier

[2001] FCA 545

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Paramasivam v Shier [2001] FCA 545

GAJA LAKSHMI PARAMASIVAM v JONATHAN SHIER & ANOR

N 135 OF 2001

LINDGREN J
4 MAY 2001
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 135 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	GAJA LAKSHMI PARAMASIVAM APPLICANT
AND:	JONATHAN SHIER FIRST RESPONDENT
GARY LINNANE SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	LINDGREN J
DATE OF ORDER:	4 MAY 2001
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 135 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

GAJA LAKSHMI PARAMASIVAM
APPLICANT

AND:

JONATHAN SHIER
FIRST RESPONDENT

GARRY LINNANE
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	LINDGREN J
DATE:	4 MAY 2001
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. By a notice of motion filed on 10 April 2001 the respondents move the Court pursuant to Order 20, rule 2, of the Federal Court Rules for orders that the application be dismissed and that the applicant pay the respondents' costs. 

2. By the application which commenced the proceeding the applicant alleged unlawful discrimination against her by the first respondent (“Mr Shier”), the Managing Director of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (“ABC”), and by the second respondent (“Mr Linnane”), the Director of Corporate Affairs at the ABC. The applicant was entitled to make the application to the Court by section 46PO of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) because a complaint she had made to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (“the Commission”) had been terminated pursuant to par 46PH(1)(c) of that Act and she had been notified of the termination by a notice of termination issued by the President of the Commission dated 23 January 2001.

3. For the respondents to succeed under O 20 r 2 it must appear to the Court that no reasonable cause of action is disclosed or that the proceeding is frivolous or vexatious or that the proceeding is an abuse of the process of the Court. 

4. In order to describe the nature of the proceeding I will give a short chronological account based on the affidavit evidence which is before me. 

5. On 24 June 2000 the applicant wrote to Mr Shier in relation to an intended restructuring of the ABC.  She said in the letter that she was a regular viewer of “The 7.30 Report” and wished to express her views about the restructuring.  For example, she expressed the opinion that the existing staff were capable of delivering good service. 

6. On 7 July 2000 Mr Linnane responded saying that Mr Shier had asked him to thank the applicant for her letter.  Mr Linnane advised the applicant that she could be assured that there were no present plans to make changes to “The 7.30 Report” and that there was no diminution in the ABC's commitment to its statutory obligation to provide independent news and current affairs programs on a regular basis…