FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Seers v Australia Postal Corporation [2011] FCA 1163
Citation: Seers v Australia Postal Corporation [2011] FCA 1163 Appeal from: Application for extension of time; and
Application for leave to appeal: Sharon Lee Seers v Australia Post [2011] FMCA 659Parties: SHARON LEE SEERS v AUSTRALIA POSTAL CORPORATION File number: VID 1046 of 2011 Judge: JESSUP J Date of judgment: 10 October 2011 Legislation: Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 24Cases cited: Decor Corporation Proprietary Limited v Dart Industries Incorporated (1991) 33 FCR 397
Scottv The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (2007) FCA 2055Date of hearing: 10 October 2011 Place: Melbourne Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: No Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 8 Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant appeared in person Counsel for the Respondent: Ms R Nelson Solicitor for the Respondent: Minter Ellison
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
VID 1046 of 2011
BETWEEN: SHARON LEE SEERS
ApplicantAND: AUSTRALIA POSTAL CORPORATION
Respondent
JUDGE:
JESSUP J
DATE OF ORDER:
10 OCTOBER 2011
WHERE MADE:
MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The time for the filing of an application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia given on 30 August 2011 be extended to 23 September 2011.
2.The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.
3.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
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
VID 1046 of 2011
BETWEEN: SHARON LEE SEERS
ApplicantAND: AUSTRALIA POSTAL CORPORATION
Respondent
JUDGE:
JESSUP J
DATE:
10 OCTOBER 2011
PLACE:
MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
On 23 September 2011, the applicant, Sharon Lee Seers, filed a joint application for an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal and for the grant of leave to appeal, from a judgment given by the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia on 30 August 2011. The applicant accepted that the Federal Magistrate’s judgment was an interlocutory one. That judgment was given upon an application made on 13 August 2010 by the applicant, alleging contraventions by the respondent, Australia Post, of various sections of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth).
In his judgment of 30 August 2011, the Magistrate made the following order:
Pursuant to rule 13.10 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, the application filed on 13 August 2010 is dismissed.
Rule 13.10 of the Federal Magistrates Rules provides for the summary dismissal of a proceeding if, amongst other things, the moving party has no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceeding. In the penultimate paragraph of his Honour’s reasons, given on 30 August 2011, the Federal Magistrate said:
I have some sympathy for the Applicant who has appeared throughout unrepresented, because of her manifest lack of legal expertise and understanding of the law applying and what is necessary to successfully prove a case of disability discrimination.…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Seers v Australia Postal Corporation and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2011] FCA 1163
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the applicant's request for an extension of time was justifiable, and if so, whether the appeal itself should be granted. The key issue was whether the applicant had demonstrated sufficient grounds for the delay in filing the application for leave to appeal and whether there were any prospects of success should the appeal be allowed. The court also had to consider the appropriate costs order in light of the outcome of the application.
The court found that the applicant had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the application for leave to appeal. Consequently, the court declined to extend the time for filing the application. Furthermore, the court determined that there were no reasonable prospects that the appeal would succeed. As a result, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The court also ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs associated with the application. This decision was made in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011, which governs the entry of orders in such cases.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The time for the filing of an application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia given on 30 August 2011 be extended to 23 September 2011.
2. The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.
3. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011
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.