Trau v President of the Anti Discrimination Board of NSW [2008] NSWSC 315

Trau v President of the Anti Discrimination Board of NSW [2008] NSWSC 315

The plaintiff had no entitlement under s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 or otherwise to the relief sought, and even if an entitlement were assumed, strong discretionary considerations including the antiquity of the matter, unexplained delay, possible futility, lack of evidentiary foundation, and absence of public interest meant relief would not be granted. The proceedings were hopeless, doomed to failure, and allowing them to continue would be an abuse of process.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Administrative Law Application for Relief in the Nature of Mandamus Concerning Police Investigation / Resumed Hearing of the Second Defendant's Notice of Motion for Summary Relief
Outcome
Proceedings dismissed; plaintiff to pay the costs of the proceedings on an indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
['mandamus' 'police Discretion' 'summary Relief' 'discretionary Remedies' 'abuse of Process' 'indemnity Costs']
['administrative Law' 'judicial Review'] ['mandamus' 'police Discretion' 'summary Relief' 'discretionary Remedies' 'abuse of Process' 'indemnity Costs']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Administrative Law Application for Relief in the Nature of Mandamus Concerning Police Investigation / Resumed Hearing of the Second Defendant's Notice of Motion for Summary Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff had an arguable entitlement to relief requiring the NSW Police to complete an investigation and refer evidence of alleged perjury to the Director of Public Prosecutions.' 'Whether the Court should intervene in the exercise of police discretion.' 'Whether the proceedings should be summarily dismissed as hopeless or an abuse of process.' 'Whether costs should be ordered on an indemnity basis.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff had no entitlement under s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 or otherwise to the relief sought, and even if an entitlement were assumed, strong discretionary considerations including the antiquity of the matter, unexplained delay, possible futility, lack of evidentiary foundation, and absence of public interest meant relief would not be granted. The proceedings were hopeless, doomed to failure, and allowing them to continue would be an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Proceedings dismissed; plaintiff to pay the costs of the proceedings on an indemnity basis.

Orders

  • ['The proceedings brought by the plaintiff are dismissed.' 'The plaintiff is to pay the costs of the proceedings.' 'Costs are to be paid on an indemnity basis.']