Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Rana v Deakin University [2013] FCA 59 Citation: Rana v Deakin University [2013] FCA 59
Parties: RANJIT SHAMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA v DEAKIN UNIVERSITY
File number: SAD 169 of 2012
Judge: MANSFIELD J
Date of judgment: 7 February 2013
Date of hearing: 11 October 2012
Place: Adelaide
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: No catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 61
Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent: S Cole
Solicitor for the Respondent: Minter Ellison
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION SAD 169 of 2012
BETWEEN: RANJIT SHAMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA
Applicant
AND: DEAKIN UNIVERSITY
Respondent
JUDGE: MANSFIELD J DATE OF ORDER: 7 FEBRUARY 2013 WHERE MADE: ADELAIDE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION SAD 169 of 2012
BETWEEN: RANJIT SHAMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA
Applicant
AND: DEAKIN UNIVERSITY
Respondent
JUDGE: MANSFIELD J DATE: 7 FEBRUARY 2013 PLACE: ADELAIDE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION 1 Mr Rana has applied for leave to appeal from a decision of Burchardt FM given on 20 July 2012: Rana v Deakin University [2012] FMCA 575. The Federal Magistrate summarily dismissed Mr Rana's application against the respondent Deakin University pursuant to s 17A of the Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth) (the FM Act) and declared Mr Rana a vexatious litigant pursuant to r 13.11 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth) (the FMC Rules), so that Mr Rana may not institute further proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Court without leave, and any existing proceedings in that court may not be continued by him without leave. 2 As the appeal is against an interlocutory judgment, Mr Rana requires leave to appeal: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 s 24(1A), Vatarescu v Commonwealth of Australia for the Agency of Centrelink (No 2) [2012] FCA 165. He has sought leave to appeal from those orders. 3 It is clear that the test to be applied on an application for leave to appeal is whether, in all the circumstances, the decision is attended with sufficient doubt to warrant its being reconsidered by the appeal court, and whether substantial injustice would result if leave were refused, supposing the decision to be wrong: Décor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397; Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd (2005) 144 FCR 379; Cabcharge Australia Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2010] FCAFC 111. Mr Rana handed up at the hearing a written document called "The Nature of the Appeal"; it did not in any real way seek to dispute those well settled principles.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate