Sheikholeslami v Brungs

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Sheikholeslami v Brungs [2006] FCA 1781

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – proceeding dismissed for non compliance with orders and as an abuse of process – leave to appeal refused

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth), ss 46PH(1)(b), 46PO, 46PR

Federal Court Rules, O 35A r 3(1), O 20 r 2  

Sheikholeslami v Brungs [2006] FCA 933 related

Colgate-Palmolive Company and Anor v Cussons Pty Limited (1993) 46 FCR 225 cited
Decor Corporation Pty Ltd and Anor v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397 applied
Lenijamar Pty Ltd and Others v AGC (Advances) Limited (1990) 27 FCR 388 cited
Re Wilcox; Ex parte Venture Industries Pty Ltd and Others (No 2) (1996) 72 FCR 151 cited
Seven Network Limited v News Limited [2005] FCAFC 125 cited
The State of Queensland and Anor v JL Holdings Pty Limited (1997) 189 CLR 146 cited

ROYA SHEIKHOLESLAMI v MICHAEL BRUNGS AND UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES
NSD 1484 OF 2006

GYLES J
20 DECEMBER 2006
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1484 OF 2006

BETWEEN:

ROYA SHEIKHOLESLAMI
Applicant

AND:

MICHAEL BRUNGS
First Respondent

UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	GYLES J
DATE OF ORDER:	20 DECEMBER 2006
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The motion be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the costs of the respondents.

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 1484 OF 2006

BETWEEN:

ROYA SHEIKHOLESLAMI
Applicant

AND:

MICHAEL BRUNGS
First Respondent

UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	GYLES J
DATE:	20 DECEMBER 2006
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant, Roya Sheikholeslami, commenced employment with the second respondent, the University of New South Wales, on 6 June 1996. On 21 October 2004, whilst still employed, she made a complaint of discrimination occurring over a period of some four years to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. The discrimination was alleged to have been carried out by the first respondent, Michael Brungs, an employee of the second respondent. On 20 April 2005, the complaint was terminated. On 17 May 2005, the applicant filed an application (Form 5) and claim (Form 167) under s 46PO of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) in the Court. On 28 July 2006, Tamberlin J dismissed the applicant’s claim pursuant to both O 35A r 3(1) and O 20 r 2 of the Federal Court Rules (Sheikholeslami v Brungs [2006] FCA 933). The applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the respondents on a solicitor/client basis. The applicant seeks leave to appeal from the dismissal of the proceeding and the order for costs.

2. Tamberlin J was the docket judge and had management of the proceeding from its inception.  Tamberlin J reserved his decision, having had the benefit of argument from counsel for the respondents and counsel for the…