FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Ugur v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [2007] FCA 1611
HACI EMIN ORHAN UGUR v HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
NSD 1704 OF 2007
COWDROY J
23 OCTOBER 2007
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 1704 OF 2007
BETWEEN:
HACI EMIN ORHAN UGUR
ApplicantAND:
HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Respondent
JUDGE:
COWDROY J
DATE OF ORDER:
23 OCTOBER 2007
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Applicant’s application for leave to appeal from the interlocutory orders of Federal Magistrate Smith of 3 August 2007 be dismissed pursuant to s 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and Order 20 Rule 5(1) of the Federal Court Rules 1979 (Cth).
2.The Applicant pay the costs of the Respondent.
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 1704 OF 2007
BETWEEN:
HACI EMIN ORHAN UGUR
ApplicantAND:
HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Respondent
JUDGE:
COWDROY J
DATE:
23 OCTOBER 2007
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The applicant, Mr Ugur has filed an application for leave to appeal from the interlocutory orders of Federal Magistrate Smith made on 3 August 2007. Such orders relate to the preparation of proceedings instituted by Mr Ugur in the Federal Magistrates Court pursuant to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Act 1986 (Cth).
Mr Ugur seeks leave to appeal from the following orders:
6.The respondent must serve a copy of this order and of the documents served by the applicant on the Public Guardian of NSW before 13 August 2007.
7.The respondent, the Public Guardian or any other intervenor, has liberty to apply to the Court upon five days notice to the applicant.
8.No subpoenas are to be issued by the registry without prior leave of the Court.
The Court has been informed by Mr Hunyor, who appears for the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, that apart from the dates appearing on the order, Mr Ugur consented to the orders being made. The Court notes that a hearing is to take place before Smith FM at 10.15 am on 21 November 2007.
The Court is not aware of the reasons for the orders made by Smith FM. It would be a serious matter for this Court to interfere with the orders of the Federal Magistrates Court when they are interlocutory, are not accompanied by any reasons for the making of the orders and relate solely to the preparation of the proceedings for hearing.
The Court finds that there is no basis for the application, that it constitutes an abuse of process of the Court and that Mr Ugur has no reasonable prospect of success. The Court accordingly dismisses the application for leave to appeal from the interlocutory orders of Smith FM pursuant to s 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and Order 20 Rule 5(1) of the Federal Court Rules 1979 (Cth).
I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Cowdroy . Associate:
Dated: 23 October 2007
Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant appeared in person Solicitor for the Respondent: Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Date of Hearing: 23 October 2007 Date of Judgment: 23 October 2007
- AGLC
- Ugur v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [2007] FCA 1611
- Case
- [2007] FCA 1611
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant was entitled to leave to appeal from the interlocutory orders. The court noted that the grant of leave to appeal from interlocutory orders was a matter within the discretion of the court, and that the court would only grant leave in cases where it was satisfied that the applicant had a serious question to be tried and that the appeal would probably succeed. The court also noted that the grant of leave to appeal from interlocutory orders was not to be lightly granted, and that the applicant would need to demonstrate that there were exceptional circumstances that warranted the grant of leave.
The court held that the applicant was not entitled to leave to appeal from the interlocutory orders. The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated that there were exceptional circumstances that warranted the grant of leave, and that the applicant had not shown that the appeal would probably succeed. The court also noted that the applicant had not identified any errors of law or fact that had been made by the Federal Magistrate, and that the interlocutory orders were not such as to cause substantial injustice to the applicant. Accordingly, the court dismissed the applicant's application for leave to appeal and ordered that the applicant pay the costs of the Commission.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The Applicant’s application for leave to appeal from the interlocutory orders of Federal Magistrate Smith of 3 August 2007 be dismissed pursuant to s 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and Order 20 Rule 5(1) of the Federal Court Rules 1979 (Cth).
2. The Applicant pay the costs of the Respondent.
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.