Chan v Louey & 1 Ors [2006] NSWSC 605

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Chan v Louey & 1 Ors [2006] NSWSC 605

HEARING DATE(S) : 16 June 2006

JUDGMENT DATE : 26 June 2006

JURISDICTION : Administrative Law List

JUDGMENT OF : Associate Justice Malpass at 1

DECISION : Order that the proceedings be dismissed. The Plaintiff is to pay the costs of the proceedings.

CATCHWORDS : Judicial review of decisions by teachers - power - claim of procedural fairness - utility - internal procedures - unrealistic litigation - summary relief.

LEGISLATION CITED : Supreme Court Act 1970, s 69 Technical and Further Education Commission Act 1990

CASES CITED : Clark v University of Lincolnshire & Humberside (2000) 1 WLR 1988

Yau Hang Chan (Plaintiff) PARTIES : Sharlene Louey (First Defendant) TAFE Commission (Second Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 30100/05

COUNSEL : In Person Plaintiff Mr M A Izzo (First and Second Defendants)

SOLICITORS : Plaintiff (not represented) I V Knight, Crown Solicitor (First and Second Defendants)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

Associate Justice Malpass

Monday, 26 June 2006

30100 of 2005 Yau Hang Chan v Sharlene Louey & 1 Ors

JUDGMENT 1 His Honour: The First Defendant is employed as a part time teacher with the TAFE Commission. She has been teaching a course known as "Develop and Apply Knowledge of the Library/Information Services Industries" (the "course"). The course is held during second semester. 2 The Plaintiff enrolled as a student with the second Defendant in January 2005. He became a student in the course. It ran between 20 July 2005 and 30 November 2005. 3 The course comprises three assessments. Assessment 1 is entitled Group Presentation. Guidelines are provided for that assessment. 4 On 15 November 2005, the first Defendant communicated to the Plaintiff a decision made by her, to the effect that he had failed the first of the three assessments (the "first decision"). 5 On the following day, the Plaintiff commenced proceedings in this Court against the First Defendant. He is a litigant in person. He now proceeds on an Amended Summons against both Defendants which was filed in Court. The relief claimed in this document is as follows:- "1. A declaration that the Plaintiff has the right to continue to attend and competency be assessed in the same manner as any other eligible students in the class ("the said class") for the module/unit no. CULLB001A named Information Services Industry held weekly on Wednesday from 6 p.m. – 8 p.m. 2. A declaration that the Defendants are not empowered to make the decision to fail the Plaintiff in Assessment no. 1 ("the Decision to Fail the Plaintiff") in the said class. 3. A declaration that the Decision to Fail The Plaintiff is null and void. 4. A declaration that the Plaintiff's Right to Withdraw Without Penalty (see below) is intact."