Seidler v University of New South Wales [2011] FCA 1156

Seidler v University of New South Wales [2011] FCA 1156

Leave to appeal was refused because the deed of release executed by the applicant plainly covered the claims advanced in the proceedings and the pursuit of these claims after settlement constituted an abuse of process. The claims had either already been determined or fell squarely within the matters released by the deed.

Parties
Applicant: Kathryn Seidler; First Respondent: The University of New South Wales 'UNSW'; Second Respondent: The Australian Graduate School of Management 'AGSM'; Third Respondent: Vice-Chancellor Fred Hilmer; Fourth Respondent: Deputy Vice-Chancellor Richard Henry (now Professor Richard Henry); Fifth Respondent: Professor Ian Wilkinson; Sixth Respondent: Professor Paul Patterson; Seventh Respondent: Professor Pam Morrison; Eighth Respondent: Professor John Roberts
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Leave to Appeal From Summary Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Summary Judgment, Abuse of Process, Deed of Release
Practice and Procedure Leave to Appeal Summary Judgment Abuse of Process Deed of Release

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kathryn Seidler

Applicant

The University of New South Wales 'UNSW'

First Respondent

The Australian Graduate School of Management 'AGSM'

Second Respondent

Vice-Chancellor Fred Hilmer

Third Respondent

Deputy Vice-Chancellor Richard Henry (now Professor Richard Henry)

Fourth Respondent

Professor Ian Wilkinson

Fifth Respondent

Professor Paul Patterson

Sixth Respondent

Professor Pam Morrison

Seventh Respondent

Professor John Roberts

Eighth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Leave to Appeal From Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to appeal from summary judgments made by Cowdroy J and Flick J in favour of the respondents
  2. 2 Whether applicant's claims are barred by a deed of release
  3. 3 Whether the proceedings amounted to an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the deed of release executed by the applicant plainly covered the claims advanced in the proceedings and the pursuit of these claims after settlement constituted an abuse of process. The claims had either already been determined or fell squarely within the matters released by the deed.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.
  • The applicant pay the respondents' costs on an indemnity basis.