Zhang v The Royal Australian Chemical Institute Inc [2006] HCATrans 227 (10 May 2006)

--

Zhang v The Royal Australian Chemical Institute Inc [2006] HCATrans 227 (10 May 2006)

Last Updated: 19 May 2006

[2006] HCATrans 227

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Melbourne Nos M76, M77, M129 and M130 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

HILDA ZHANG

Applicant

and

THE ROYAL AUSTRALIAN CHEMICAL INSTITUTE INC

Respondent

Applications for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GUMMOW J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 10 MAY 2006, AT 9.33 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J: The applicant has filed four applications for special leave to appeal to this Court.

The applicant was employed as an accountant by the respondent. After various disputes between the applicant and the respondent, the applicant’s employment was terminated on 12 December 2003. She filed proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia contending that the termination had taken place for a reason prohibited by s 170CK(2)(e) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth): “the filing of a complaint ... against an employer involving alleged violation of laws or regulations ....”

Finkelstein J dismissed the applicant’s application as frivolous and vexatious. He held that the provision did not apply to complaints made directly to an employer, only to complaints made to outside authorities, relying on He’s case [2004] FCAFC 161 (the appellant in those proceedings being the applicant’s husband). He rejected the applicant’s contention that various documents sent to outside authorities were complaints within the statutory language and held that she had not shown that any of them had led to her dismissal. Finkelstein J also made a costs order adverse to the applicant in relation to costs incurred after a particular date, being a date one week after the day on which He’s case was decided, on the ground that from that date it would have been clear to the applicant and her husband that that decision applied and made it unreasonable for her to persist in continuing the action.

The Full Federal Court (Spender, Kenny and Lander JJ) dismissed an appeal against both the order of dismissal and the costs order. Later, the Full Court also ordered the applicant to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal on the ground that it was a proceeding brought vexatiously or without reasonable cause.

The applicant at all stages has not been legally represented.

In her four applications for special leave to appeal, the applicant proposes to rely on 25 grounds of appeal in relation to the Full Court’s treatment of Finkelstein J’s first decision (M76 of 2005); six in relation to its treatment of the second (M77 of 2005); 10 in relation to the costs order relating to the appeal to the Full Court (M129 of 2005); and a further seven in relation to that order (M130 of 2005). There is immense repetition and overlapping in the arguments advanced in support of these grounds. The applicant has also filed, and it is said that she has served, a notice under s 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) to the Attorneys-General of the Commonwealth, the States and the Territories. A reasonable time has elapsed since the s 78B notices were given. No Attorney-General has indicated a desire to intervene.

The documents filed by the applicant do not demonstrate that there are prospects of her showing error in the reasoning of the courts below sufficient to justify a grant of special leave to appeal in any of the applications. They should be dismissed.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the applications for special leave. We also direct the Registrar to inform any Attorney-General on whom the s 78B notice in M77, M129 and M130 of 2005 has been served of the dismissal of the applications in those proceedings. I publish the disposition signed by Heydon J and myself in respect of all four applications.

AT 9.37 AM THE MATTERS WERE CONCLUDED