Przybylowski v Australian Human Rights Commission [2020] FCA 198

Przybylowski v Australian Human Rights Commission [2020] FCA 198

The proceeding was dismissed because the Applicant's grounds depended on the President or another person obtaining or awaiting a decision of the International Court of Justice, which was non-justiciable, and because there was no reasonable prospect of establishing that procedural fairness required the President to secure or await such a decision. The additional allegations of lack of impartiality, withholding information, and fraud had no factual foundation or substance, so the Applicant had no reasonable prospects of success under r 26.01(1) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review / Interlocutory Applications for Summary Dismissal and Stay; Final Dismissal of Proceeding
Outcome
Proceeding dismissed; Applicant's interlocutory application dismissed; Applicant ordered to pay the Intervener's costs.
Legal Topics
['summary Judgment' 'no Reasonable Prospects of Success' 'non Justiciability' 'procedural Fairness' 'natural Justice' 'international Court of Justice' 'australian Human Rights Commission Complaints']
['practice and Procedure' 'administrative Law' 'human Rights' 'international Proceedings'] ['summary Judgment' 'no Reasonable Prospects of Success' 'non Justiciability' 'procedural Fairness' 'natural Justice' 'international Court of Justice' 'australian Human Rights Commission Complaints']

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 / Interlocutory Applications for Summary Dismissal and Stay; Final Dismissal of Proceeding

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proceeding should be summarily dismissed under r 26.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).' 'Whether claims requiring the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission or another person to obtain or await a decision of the International Court of Justice were justiciable.' 'Whether the President denied the Applicant natural justice or procedural fairness by not obtaining or awaiting a decision of the International Court of Justice.' "Whether there was any factual basis for complaints that the Commission lacked impartiality or independence, withheld information about UNCRAM and the Attorney-General's responsibilities, or acted fraudulently." "Whether the Applicant's interlocutory application for a stay should be dismissed."]

Ratio Decidendi

The proceeding was dismissed because the Applicant's grounds depended on the President or another person obtaining or awaiting a decision of the International Court of Justice, which was non-justiciable, and because there was no reasonable prospect of establishing that procedural fairness required the President to secure or await such a decision. The additional allegations of lack of impartiality, withholding information, and fraud had no factual foundation or substance, so the Applicant had no reasonable prospects of success under r 26.01(1) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).

Court Disposition

Proceeding dismissed; Applicant's interlocutory application dismissed; Applicant ordered to pay the Intervener's costs.

Orders

  • ['The proceeding is dismissed.' 'The Interlocutory Application filed by the Applicant and dated 4 October 2019 is dismissed.' 'The Applicant in the proceeding is to pay the costs of the Intervener, namely the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia.']