Rahman v Director-General of the Dept of Education and Training

[2006] HCATrans 188

[2006] HCATrans 188

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S443 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

M. TABIBAR RAHMAN

Applicant

and

DIRECTOR‑GENERAL OF THE DEPT OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GUMMOW J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 12 APRIL 2006, AT 9.38 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J:   From 2001 the applicant worked as a casual teacher in the New South Wales Department of Education and Training.  It was a condition of his employment that he undergo an examination of his English language proficiency.  He failed that examination.  His employment was extended several times.  The last of these extensions was until 4 July 2003.  The applicant took no further steps to pass the examination.

The applicant commenced proceedings in the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales pursuant to s 84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW) contending that the respondent had terminated his employment harshly, unreasonably or unjustly. McKenna C refused relief on the ground that the applicant had not been dismissed: his employment was casual, conditional and for a defined period, and that period had ended on 4 July 2003 without the condition having been satisfied. She also found that the application had been out of time and that the applicant had not advanced any reason why it should be accepted out of time.

The Full Bench (Sams DP, Staff J and Bishop C) refused leave to appeal on the ground that no error had been shown in McKenna C’s reasoning in relation to time.  The respondent informed the Full Bench in the course of the hearing that if the applicant passed the relevant examination, the respondent would re-employ him. 

The New South Wales Court of Appeal (Mason P, Handley and Bryson JJA) refused leave to appeal because there was no right of appeal; and it refused prerogative relief on the ground that no jurisdictional error had been shown.

The applicant’s special leave application to this Court is embarrassing, vexatious, abusive and very difficult to follow.  It is not directed to the two reasons given by McKenna C for dismissing the original application, and it does not expose any error of jurisdiction.  It has no prospects of success. 

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.  I publish the disposition signed by Heydon J and myself.

AT 9.40 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED