Sheikholeslami v Brungs

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Sheikholeslami v Brungs [2007] FCA 556

ROYA SHEIKHOLESLAMI v MICHAEL BRUNGS AND UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES
NSD 280 OF 2007

ALLSOP J
16 APRIL 2007
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 280 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

ROYA SHEIKHOLESLAMI
Applicant

AND:

MICHAEL BRUNGS
First Respondent

UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	ALLSOP J
DATE OF ORDER:	16 APRIL 2007
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The parties have leave to file submissions on the orders proposed in these reasons.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 280 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

ROYA SHEIKHOLESLAMI
Applicant

AND:

MICHAEL BRUNGS
First Respondent

UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	ALLSOP J
DATE:	16 APRIL 2007
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application made by the applicant for leave to file out of time an application under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) (the “HREOC Act”). Previous proceedings were brought in the Court which culminated in orders being made by Tamberlin J on 28 July 2006 in which his Honour dismissed the applicant's application on an interlocutory basis: see Sheikholeslami v Brungs [2006] FCA 933. His Honour's reasons are set out in those published on that day. Those reasons are before me.

2. The applicant sought leave to appeal from the reasons of Tamberlin J.  That matter was heard by Gyles J on 20 December 2006 who dismissed the application: see Sheikholeslami v Brungs [2006] FCA 1781. I do not propose to set out in detail what both Tamberlin J and Gyles J said. The reader of these reasons should understand them to be given with full background of the reasons of Tamberlin J and Gyles J.

3. The claim which the applicant brought in what I will refer to as the earlier proceedings in this Court, being those disposed of by Tamberlin J in the original jurisdiction last year, concerned the same matters and complaint as the current application concerns.  The parties through their legal representatives have helpfully brought together the relevant evidence in this case and may I at the outset thank counsel and solicitors on both sides for the clarity with which they have presented the material.

4. The earlier form of the application under HREOC Act, is contained in tab 1 to exhibit 1 which is the exhibit to the affidavit of Mr Mattson. This was the application that was before Tamberlin J when his Honour made the comments that he did in his reasons. Whilst, as I said, I will not repeat in extenso the comments of Tamberlin J, it is important to begin the analysis of this application by reference to the history.

5. In effect, the same application was brought on an earlier occasion and the respondents and the Court were treated in the way that Tamberlin J…