Paramasivam v Wheeler & Ors [2001] FCA 231

Paramasivam v Wheeler & Ors [2001] FCA 231

The decisions under challenge were not attended with sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration, nor would substantial injustice result if leave to appeal were refused. The primary judge correctly applied the legal test for summary dismissal; the applicant's complaints on appeal were not supported by the transcript or facts, and she had the procedural opportunity to advance her case and cross-examine witnesses.

Parties
Applicant: Gaja Lakshmi Paramasivam; Respondent: Chris Wheeler; Respondent: Irene Moss; Respondent: Laurie Glanfield; Respondent: Yvonne Grant; Respondent: Harry Herbert; Respondent: Suzanne Jamieson; Respondent: Ruth McColl; Respondent: Peter Ryan; Respondent: David Kemp; Respondent: John Howard; Respondent: Tom Karmel; Respondent: Bob Sendt; Respondent: John Aquilina
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 February 2001
Procedural Posture
Applications for Leave to Appeal / Decision on Leave to Appeal; Summary Dismissal
Outcome
leave to appeal refused; applications dismissed; costs ordered against applicant
Legal Topics
Summary Dismissal, Leave to Appeal, Racial Discrimination, Powers of Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
Administrative Law Discrimination Law Summary Dismissal Leave to Appeal Racial Discrimination Powers of Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gaja Lakshmi Paramasivam

Applicant

Chris Wheeler

Respondent

Irene Moss

Respondent

Laurie Glanfield

Respondent

Yvonne Grant

Respondent

Harry Herbert

Respondent

Suzanne Jamieson

Respondent

Ruth McColl

Respondent

Peter Ryan

Respondent

David Kemp

Respondent

John Howard

Respondent

Tom Karmel

Respondent

Bob Sendt

Respondent

John Aquilina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Applications for Leave to Appeal / Decision on Leave to Appeal; Summary Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal summary dismissal of applications under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the primary judge applied the correct legal test for summary dismissal
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was denied procedural fairness in the conduct of the motions

Ratio Decidendi

The decisions under challenge were not attended with sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration, nor would substantial injustice result if leave to appeal were refused. The primary judge correctly applied the legal test for summary dismissal; the applicant's complaints on appeal were not supported by the transcript or facts, and she had the procedural opportunity to advance her case and cross-examine witnesses.

Court Disposition

leave to appeal refused; applications dismissed; costs ordered against applicant

Orders

  • Leave to appeal against the decision of Moore J in each of the matters refused.
  • Applicant to pay the respondents' costs of the motions and applications for leave to appeal in each of the matters.