Shammas v Canberra Institute of Technology

In the case of Shammas v Canberra Institute of Technology, the applicant, Shammas, brought claims against the Canberra Institute of Technology (the Institute) which were subsequently subject to a motion to summarily dismiss. Shammas alleged that the Institute discriminated against her by failing to properly investigate complaints she made in October 2010, and sought a declaration, damages and an injunction. The Institute argued that the claims should be dismissed as they were not even arguable, and were an abuse of the court process as they had been previously litigated. The court was required to determine whether the applicant's claims had no reasonable prospect of success and whether the proceedings constituted an abuse of the court process.

The court considered the principles of summary dismissal, noting that the test is whether there is no reasonable prospect of success, which is a lower threshold than no real prospect of success. The court found that Shammas' claims were not bound to fail, but there was no reasonable prospect of success as the court had previously found that the Institute's failure to investigate the complaints did not constitute discrimination. The court also found that the proceeding was not an abuse of the process as it was not res judicata, and the applicant's claims were not the same as those previously litigated. The court concluded that the proceeding should be summarily dismissed with costs.

Accordingly, the court made orders summarily dismissing the proceeding and awarding costs to the respondent. The court held that the proceeding should be dismissed as Shammas' claims were not arguable, and there was no reasonable prospect of success. The court also found that the proceeding was not an abuse of the court process, as the claims were not the same as those previously litigated, and the court had not found that the applicant had been sexually harassed. The court ordered that the whole of the proceeding be summarily dismissed, and that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the proceeding.