Rana v Deakin University

The case of Rana v Deakin University involved a dispute between Mr Rana and Deakin University. Mr Rana alleged that he was marked down in assessments in two study units because of his race and disability, and that the Australian Human Rights Commission’s delegate erred in terminating his complaint. The Federal Magistrates Court was tasked with deciding the legal issues arising from Mr Rana's application for leave to appeal the decision of the Federal Magistrate. The court had to determine whether the decision of the Federal Magistrate was attended with sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration by the appeal court, and whether substantial injustice would result if leave were refused.

The court reviewed the principles governing leave to appeal, and considered the evidence presented by Mr Rana. The Federal Magistrate had concluded that Mr Rana's complaint lacked substance, as there was little information to support the claim that his race or disability were factors in his assessments. The court found that the Federal Magistrate had carefully considered the evidence and that Mr Rana's allegations were not supported by the material he relied upon. The court held that the decision of the Federal Magistrate was not attended with sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration by the appeal court, and that there would be no substantial injustice if leave to appeal were refused.

The court dismissed Mr Rana's application for leave to appeal, and ordered that he pay Deakin University’s costs of the application, to be taxed on an indemnity basis if not agreed. The court found that the Federal Magistrate’s decision was correct, and that Mr Rana's complaint lacked substance. The court held that there was no basis for Mr Rana to appeal the decision of the Federal Magistrate, and that the decision should be upheld.