Zirk-Sadowski v University of New South Wales (No 3)

The Applicant, Dr Jan Zirk-Sadowski, sought judicial review of decisions made by the Fair Work Commission (FWC) in relation to three separate appeals. The FWC had denied the Applicant's requests for an extension of time to lodge an application regarding a dismissal dispute, for confidentiality orders, and for permission to appeal those decisions. The Applicant, who appeared without legal representation, filed extensive documentation and made numerous claims challenging the FWC's decisions, but these claims were largely unclear and overlapping. The Applicant alleged that the FWC erred in not considering the impact of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 (Cth), in exercising its power for an improper purpose, in not protecting the Applicant's personal information, and in various other ways. The legal issues were whether the FWC fell into jurisdictional error in making these decisions.

The Court found that the Applicant had not demonstrated any jurisdictional error in the FWC decisions. The FWC had considered the PID Act and other relevant legislation in its decisions, and the Applicant had not shown that the FWC misconstrued or misunderstood the applicable legal tests. The Court noted that the Applicant's claims were difficult to follow and often unrelated to the actual decisions being challenged. The Court concluded that the Applicant had not articulated any material facts or legal principles that demonstrated a reviewable error. The Applicant's claims were largely reiterations of arguments previously made to the FWC, which had already been considered and rejected.

The Court dismissed the Applicant's application for judicial review. The University of New South Wales (UNSW) was ordered to file written submissions on costs within 7 days, and the Applicant was ordered to file reply submissions within 14 days. The Court found no merit in the Applicant's extensive and convoluted claims, and upheld the decisions of the FWC.