Stanislawa Bahonko v Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology & Ors [2006] FCA 1492

Stanislawa Bahonko v Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology & Ors [2006] FCA 1492

The application for leave to appeal must be refused because there is no doubt as to the correctness of the interlocutory decision; no substantive injustice would result from refusal of leave, as the applicant provided no evidence substantiating claims of discrimination and the claims were without merit or jurisdiction; thus, it would be futile to grant leave.

Parties
Applicant: Stanislawa Bahonko; First Respondent: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology; Second Respondent: Minister for Education and Training; Third Respondent: Victorian Institute of Teaching
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Application to Appeal From Interlocutory Judgment; Leave to Appeal Sought
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Interlocutory Judgment, Discretion to Grant Leave, Racial Discrimination, Disability Discrimination, Jurisdiction Under Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act
Practice and Procedure Discrimination Law Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Judgment Discretion to Grant Leave Racial Discrimination Disability Discrimination Jurisdiction Under Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stanislawa Bahonko

Applicant

Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology

First Respondent

Minister for Education and Training

Second Respondent

Victorian Institute of Teaching

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Application to Appeal From Interlocutory Judgment; Leave to Appeal Sought

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment should be granted
  2. 2 Whether there is sufficient doubt in the original decision to warrant leave
  3. 3 Whether a substantive injustice would result if leave is refused

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal must be refused because there is no doubt as to the correctness of the interlocutory decision; no substantive injustice would result from refusal of leave, as the applicant provided no evidence substantiating claims of discrimination and the claims were without merit or jurisdiction; thus, it would be futile to grant leave.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The application be dismissed.