FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Paramasivam v Wheeler [2000] FCA 1559 GAJA LAKSHMI PARAMASIVAM v CHRIS WHEELER (ACTING OMBUDSMAN (NSW)), IRENE MOSS (COMMISSIONER, INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION), LAURIE GLANFIELD, YVONNE GRANT, THE REVEREND HARRY HERBERT, SUZZANE JAMIESON, RUTH McCOLL, PETER RYAN (MEMBERS OF THE OPERATIONS REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION) N 488 OF 2000 GAJA LAKSHMI PARAMASIVAM v THE HONOURABLE DR DAVID KEMP N 751 OF 2000 GAJA LAKSHMI PARAMASIVAM v THE HONOURABLE JOHN HOWARD N 752 OF 2000 GAJA LAKSHMI PARAMASIVAM v TOM KARMEL N 753 OF 2000 GAJA LAKSHMI PARAMASIVAM v BOB SENDT N 754 OF 2000 GAJA LAKSHMI PARAMASIVAM v THE HONOURABLE JOHN AQUILINA N 755 OF 2000 MOORE J 25 OCTOBER 2000 SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 488 OF 2000 BETWEEN: GAJA LAKSHMI PARAMASIVAM APPLICANT AND: CHRIS WHEELER (ACTING OMBUDSMAN (NSW) FIRST RESPONDENT IRENE MOSS (COMMISSIONER, INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION), LAURIE GLANFIELD, YVONNE GRANT, THE REVEREND HARRY HERBERT, SUZZANE JAMIESON, RUTH McCOLL, PETER RYAN (MEMBERS OF THE OPERATIONS REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION) SECOND RESPONDENTS IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 751 OF 2000 BETWEEN: GAJA LAKSHMI PARAMASIVAM APPLICANT AND: THE HONOURABLE DR DAVID KEMP RESPONDENT IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 752 OF 2000 BETWEEN: GAJA LAKSHMI PARAMASIVAM APPLICANT AND: THE HONOURABLE JOHN HOWARD RESPONDENT IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 753 OF 2000 BETWEEN: GAJA LAKSHMI PARAMASIVAM APPLICANT AND: TOM KARMEL RESPONDENT IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 754 OF 2000 BETWEEN: GAJA LAKSHMI PARAMASIVAM APPLICANT AND: BOB SENDT RESPONDENT IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 755 OF 2000 BETWEEN: GAJA LAKSHMI PARAMASIVAM APPLICANT AND: THE HONOURABLE JOHN AQUILINA RESPONDENT JUDGE: MOORE J DATE OF ORDER: 25 OCTOBER 2000 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The applications in matters N 488 of 2000, N 751 of 2000, N 752 of 2000, N 753 of 2000, N 754 of 2000 and N 755 of 2000 be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondents' costs of the applications. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 488 OF 2000 BETWEEN: GAJA LAKSHMI PARAMASIVAM APPLICANT AND: CHRIS WHEELER (ACTING OMBUDSMAN (NSW) FIRST RESPONDENT IRENE MOSS (COMMISSIONER, INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION), LAURIE GLANFIELD, YVONNE GRANT, THE REVEREND HARRY HERBERT, SUZZANE JAMIESON, RUTH McCOLL, PETER RYAN (MEMBERS OF THE OPERATIONS REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION) SECOND RESPONDENTS IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 751 OF 2000 BETWEEN: GAJA LAKSHMI PARAMASIVAM APPLICANT AND: THE HONOURABLE DR DAVID KEMP RESPONDENT IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 752 OF 2000 BETWEEN: GAJA LAKSHMI PARAMASIVAM APPLICANT AND: THE HONOURABLE JOHN HOWARD RESPONDENT IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 753 OF 2000 BETWEEN: GAJA LAKSHMI PARAMASIVAM APPLICANT AND: TOM KARMEL RESPONDENT IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 754 OF 2000 BETWEEN: GAJA LAKSHMI PARAMASIVAM APPLICANT AND: BOB SENDT RESPONDENT IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 755 OF 2000 BETWEEN: GAJA LAKSHMI PARAMASIVAM APPLICANT AND: THE HONOURABLE JOHN AQUILINA RESPONDENT JUDGE: MOORE J DATE OF ORDER: 25 OCTOBER 2000 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 I am presently dealing with applications to summarily dismiss six applications brought against the Prime Minister, Ministers of both the Commonwealth and the State of New South Wales and a Commonwealth departmental officer as well as the New South Wales Ombudsman, the operations review team of the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption and the New South Wales Auditor-General. 2 The applicant alleges that the respondents have engaged in conduct which is proscribed by the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth). The principal section relied upon is s 13 which, in summary, renders it unlawful for a person who supplies goods or services to the public to refuse or fail to supply those goods or to do so unless favourable terms or conditions by reason of, relevantly, the race of the person seeking those services. 3 In the present case the background to the proceedings may be briefly summarised. The applicant was employed at the University of New South Wales ("the University") to undertake accounting work and commenced that employment in January of 1998. During the course of her employment the applicant perceived deficiencies in the way in which the accounting system in the University operated. Indeed, she formed the view that there was false reporting on how funds were being used. That led the applicant to make complaints within the University about the matter. The applicant was and remains dissatisfied about the manner in which the matter was investigated. 4 The applicant resigned from her employment at the University in August 1998, effective 14 October 1998. However she recommenced employment at the University for a brief period under contract between January and May 1999. There was then an internal investigation within the University into the matters she complained of which concluded in September 1999. Thereafter, the applicant complained to various government instrumentalities, authorities or departments about the matter, and her dissatisfaction with the responses she received led to these proceedings. 5 It is unnecessary for me to descend into detail as to what specifically was said by way of complaint and what was said by way of reply. The applicant has described, in general terms, the complaint against the various respondents as being a failure to provide her with the objective basis for refusing to pursue or declining to pursue her complaint to them. 6 At today's hearing, I invited the applicant to draw my attention to any material which would support the contention that there had been such a failure and, if so, whether that established directly or by inference, even arguably, that those dealing with her had done so in a way that was proscribed by the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth). I should add, as counsel for several of the New South Wales respondents has pointed out, s 9 of that Act may also be relevant in proceedings such as these. 7 A considerable amount of material has been put on by the various respondents evidencing the way in which the applicant was dealt with by or on behalf of the respondents. Nothing in that material has been pointed to by the applicant which would indicate that the way which she was dealt with was anything other than regular and certainly not in a way that would suggest that she was dealt with in a way that was proscribed by the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth). 8 I do not doubt, as I have explained to the applicant recently, that she genuinely holds a view that the way in which she was dealt with by or on behalf of the various respondents was because of her race. However, proceedings such as these involve an objective analysis of the evidence to ascertain whether proscribed conduct has been engaged in or not. There is simply nothing in the material to which my attention has been drawn which would suggest such a case might be made out. I must accept that an application for the summary dismissal of proceedings involves the respondents establishing a high measure of satisfaction in the Court that the proceedings are of a character that they should be dismissed. I am so satisfied in these proceedings. Accordingly, I propose to order that each of the matters, namely matters N 751 of 2000, N 752 of 2000, N 753 of 2000, N 488 of 2000, N 754 of 2000, and N 755 of 2000 be dismissed. I so order. 9 An application has been made for an order that the applicant pay the costs of the respondent in each of the proceedings. I am conscious of the fact that the applicant represented herself and, as I indicated a moment ago, holds a genuine belief about the conduct of the people against whom these proceedings have been brought. In the ordinary course successful respondents are entitled to their costs, though in this area of the Court's jurisdiction special considerations may arise in some cases that might warrant some departure from the normal rule. 10 However, I think in the circumstances it is appropriate that a costs order be made. I order that the respondents' costs of the application be paid by the applicant. Having so ordered, however, I would invite the parties for whose benefit the order is made to give consideration as to whether, in the circumstances, it is appropriate that all or, indeed, any of the costs ought to be recovered. I certify that the preceding ten (10) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore. Associate: Dated: 2 November 2000 The applicant appeared in person. Counsel for the respondents in matters N 488 of 2000, N 754 of 2000 and N 755 of 2000: Ms K Eastman Solicitor for the respondents in matters N 488 of 2000, N 754 of 2000 and N 755 of 2000: Crown Solicitor's Office (New South Wales) Counsel for the respondents in matters N 751 of 2000, N 752 of 2000 and N 753 of 2000: Dr J Griffiths Solicitor for the respondents in matters N 751 of 2000, N 752 of 2000 and N 753 of 2000: Clayton Utz Date of Hearing: 25 October 2000 Date of Judgment: 25 October 2000