Przybylowski v Australian Human Rights Commission [2021] FCA 1398

Przybylowski v Australian Human Rights Commission [2021] FCA 1398

The application for judicial review had no reasonable prospects of success and disclosed no reasonable cause of action because the grounds were unparticularised, no breach of procedural fairness was established, the delegate had jurisdiction as delegate of the President of the Commission, and the allegation of fraud was bare and unparticularised. The proceeding was also an abuse of process because the applicant was attempting to revisit matters determined in the 2014 SSAT decision and 2015 FCC Judgment and to pursue non-justiciable relief involving the International Court of Justice. The Attorney-General was appropriately substituted as second respondent under r 9.11.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review Under Ss 6(1)(a), (c) and (g) of the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) / Application for Summary Judgment Under R 26.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth)
Outcome
The Attorney-General's application for summary judgment was successful; the whole application for judicial review was dismissed and there was no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['summary Judgment' 'judicial Review' 'australian Human Rights Commission Decision Not to Inquire Into Complaint' 'procedural Fairness' 'jurisdiction' 'fraud Allegation' 'abuse of Process' 'substitution of Respondent']
['administrative Law' 'human Rights' 'practice and Procedure'] ['summary Judgment' 'judicial Review' 'australian Human Rights Commission Decision Not to Inquire Into Complaint' 'procedural Fairness' 'jurisdiction' 'fraud Allegation' 'abuse of Process' 'substitution of Respondent']

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

Application for Judicial Review Under Ss 6(1)(a), (c) and (g) of the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) / Application for Summary Judgment Under R 26.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant had reasonable prospects of successfully prosecuting the judicial review proceeding.' 'Whether the application disclosed a reasonable cause of action.' 'Whether the proceeding was an abuse of process.' "Whether the applicant established a breach of procedural fairness in the Commission delegate's decision." 'Whether the Commission delegate had jurisdiction to make the decision under s 20(2)(ba) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth).' 'Whether the allegation of fraud was properly pleaded and particularised.' 'Whether the Attorney-General should be substituted for the Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia as second respondent.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for judicial review had no reasonable prospects of success and disclosed no reasonable cause of action because the grounds were unparticularised, no breach of procedural fairness was established, the delegate had jurisdiction as delegate of the President of the Commission, and the allegation of fraud was bare and unparticularised. The proceeding was also an abuse of process because the applicant was attempting to revisit matters determined in the 2014 SSAT decision and 2015 FCC Judgment and to pursue non-justiciable relief involving the International Court of Justice. The Attorney-General was appropriately substituted as second respondent under r 9.11.

Court Disposition

The Attorney-General's application for summary judgment was successful; the whole application for judicial review was dismissed and there was no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to rule 9.11 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia be substituted for the Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia as the second respondent to these proceedings.' 'The whole of the application for judicial review is...