Dunstan v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission [1999] FCA 1608

Dunstan v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission [1999] FCA 1608

The application was dismissed because it did not allege any material facts sufficient to establish a cause of action against any of the respondents, nor did it identify proceedings or conduct capable of being judicially reviewed by this Court. The claims were either already subject to other proceedings, dealt with by other courts, or did not disclose any reasonable cause of action. The proceedings were therefore foredoomed to fail and constituted an abuse of process.

Parties
Applicant: Colin George Dunstan; First Respondent: Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission; Second Respondent: Commonwealth of Australia; Third Respondent: Susan Lesley Langford; Fourth Respondent: Linda Jane Higginson
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 November 1999
Procedural Posture
Application / Final Determination (dismissal of Application After Motion to Strike Out)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Application to Dismiss for No Reasonable Cause of Action, Frivolous or Vexatious Proceedings, Abuse of Process, Judicial Review, Negligence, False Testimony, Fabrication of Evidence
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Application to Dismiss for No Reasonable Cause of Action Frivolous or Vexatious Proceedings Abuse of Process Judicial Review Negligence False Testimony +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Colin George Dunstan

Applicant

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission

First Respondent

Commonwealth of Australia

Second Respondent

Susan Lesley Langford

Third Respondent

Linda Jane Higginson

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application / Final Determination (dismissal of Application After Motion to Strike Out)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application disclosed any reasonable cause of action against the respondents
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings were frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of the Court's process
  3. 3 Whether the Federal Court had jurisdiction to entertain the relief sought under the Judiciary Act and the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because it did not allege any material facts sufficient to establish a cause of action against any of the respondents, nor did it identify proceedings or conduct capable of being judicially reviewed by this Court. The claims were either already subject to other proceedings, dealt with by other courts, or did not disclose any reasonable cause of action. The proceedings were therefore foredoomed to fail and constituted an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Any application for leave to appeal or appeal from the order commences to run from 22 November 1999.