Rana v Deakin University

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Rana v Deakin University [2013] FCA 59

Citation:		Rana v Deakin University [2013] FCA 59
Parties:		RANJIT SHAMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA v DEAKIN UNIVERSITY
File number:		SAD 169 of 2012
Judge:		MANSFIELD J
Date of judgment:		7 February 2013
Date of hearing:	11 October 2012
Place:	Adelaide
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	No catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	61
Counsel for the Applicant:	The applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	S Cole
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Minter Ellison

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	SAD 169 of 2012

BETWEEN:	RANJIT SHAMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA Applicant
AND:	DEAKIN UNIVERSITY Respondent

JUDGE:	MANSFIELD J
DATE OF ORDER:	7 FEBRUARY 2013
WHERE MADE:	ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs.  

Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	SAD 169 of 2012

BETWEEN:	RANJIT SHAMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA Applicant
AND:	DEAKIN UNIVERSITY Respondent

JUDGE:	MANSFIELD J
DATE:	7 FEBRUARY 2013
PLACE:	ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

1. Mr Rana has applied for leave to appeal from a decision of Burchardt FM given on 20 July 2012: Rana v Deakin University [2012] FMCA 575. The Federal Magistrate summarily dismissed Mr Rana’s application against the respondent Deakin University pursuant to s 17A of the Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth) (the FM Act) and declared Mr Rana a vexatious litigant pursuant to r 13.11 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth) (the FMC Rules), so that Mr Rana may not institute further proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Court without leave, and any existing proceedings in that court may not be continued by him without leave.

2. As the appeal is against an interlocutory judgment, Mr Rana requires leave to appeal: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 s 24(1A), Vatarescu v Commonwealth of Australia for the Agency of Centrelink(No 2) [2012] FCA 165. He has sought leave to appeal from those orders.

3. It is clear that the test to be applied on an application for leave to appeal is whether, in all the circumstances, the decision is attended with sufficient doubt to warrant its being reconsidered by the appeal court, and whether substantial injustice would result if leave were refused, supposing the decision to be wrong: Décor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397; Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd (2005) 144 FCR 379; Cabcharge Australia Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2010] FCAFC 111. Mr Rana handed up at the hearing a written document called “The Nature of the Appeal”; it did not in any real way seek to dispute those well settled principles.

   THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATE’S DECISION

4. The Federal Magistrate referred to the extensive and “somewhat scattergun” material presented by Mr Rana.

5. His Honour identified the cause of action as arising initially from a…