Paramasivam v Wheeler

Paramasivam v Wheeler is a case concerning the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Federal Court of Australia, which dismissed her application for judicial review. The applicant had filed complaints with multiple authorities about the handling of her complaints by the University and various government officials, alleging that the refusal to investigate her claims was due to her race. The primary judge terminated the hearings of the complaints, finding them lacking in substance. The applicant subsequently appealed to the Federal Court, which dismissed her appeal and ordered her to pay the respondents' costs. The respondents have now moved to have the notices of appeal struck out, arguing that they are incompetent or disclose no proper ground of appeal.

The legal issues before the court were whether the decisions under challenge were attended with sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration, and whether substantial injustice would result if leave to appeal were refused. The court considered whether the primary judge had applied the correct stringent test before summarily dismissing the applications. The court found that the primary judge had applied the correct test and that the applications should not have been permitted to go to trial in the ordinary way, as it was apparent that they must fail.

The court further held that the decisions under challenge were not attended with sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration by the Court. The court did not think that substantial injustice would result if leave were refused, even if the decision were wrong. The court found that the primary judge had applied the correct stringent test before summarily dismissing the applications and that the material before the primary judge was such that the applications should not have been permitted to go to trial in the ordinary way. The court concluded that the primary judge can be seen, quite clearly, to have applied the correct stringent test before summarily dismissing these applications.

The court made two orders. Firstly, leave to appeal against the decision of Moore J in each of the matters was refused. Secondly, the applicant was ordered to pay the respondents’ costs of the motions and applications for leave to appeal, in each of the matters.