Paramasivam v Randwick City Council [2005] FCA 369

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Paramasivam v Randwick City Council [2005] FCA 369

PRACTICE and PROCEDURE – proceedings seeking judicial review of a refusal of a Registrar to issue initiating process following direction by a Judge – summary dismissal application – whether judicial review proceedings have any prospect of success – whether arguable case that Registrar took into account irrelevant considerations – Federal Court Rules O 46 r 7A

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) s 5 Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) ss 46PH, 46PO Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) ss 5, 22 Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) ss 9, 13 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)

Federal Court Rules (Cth) O 20 r 2, O 46 r 7A High Court Rules 1952 (Cth)O 58 r 4(3) High Court Rules 2004 (Cth)r 6.07

Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd (No 4) [2005] FCA 244 cited Legal Aid Commission v Edwards (1982) 42 ALR 154 considered Letts v Commonwealth (1985) 8 FCR 585 considered Bizuneh v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2003) 128 FCR 353 followed GAJA LAKSHMI PARAMASIVAM v RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL and OTHERS NSD 124 of 2005 SACKVILLE J SYDNEY 7 APRIL 2005

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 124 of 2005

BETWEEN: GAJA LAKSHMI PARAMASIVAM

APPLICANT

AND: RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL

FIRST RESPONDENT

LANCE GRANT

(a Deputy District Registrar of the Federal Court of Australia)

SECOND RESPONDENT

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE PETER JACOBSON

(a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia)

THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE: SACKVILLE J

DATE OF ORDER: 7 APRIL 2005

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The Deputy District Registrar of the Court (Mr Lance Grant) and the Honourable Justice Peter Jacobson (a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia) be joined as respondents to the proceedings. 2. The applicant's motion filed 21 March 2005 be otherwise dismissed. 3. The Council's motion filed 3 March 2005 be dismissed. 4. There be no order as to the costs of the motions referred to in orders 2 and 3. 5. The matter be listed for further directions on 28 April 2005 at 9.30 am.