Chandrasekaran v Commonwealth of Australia (No 3)

• Jurisdiction: Australia Federal only
• Judgment Date: 11 November 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] FCA 1629
• Court: Federal Court
• Date: 11 November 2020

Federal Court of Australia

Chandrasekaran v Commonwealth of Australia (No 3) [2020] FCA 1629

File number:	NSD 974 of 2019
Judgment of:	WIGNEY J
Date of judgment:	11 November 2020
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – summary judgment – whether applicant has no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceeding – whether proceeding is frivolous or vexatious – whether no reasonable cause of action disclosed – whether the proceeding is an abuse of the processes of the Court – whether pleadings should be struck out – whether pleading is evasive, ambiguous or likely to cause prejudice or embarrassment – Held: judgment entered in favour of each respondent against the applicant
Legislation:	Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Sch 2 Australian Consumer Law s 18 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 19, 31A, 31A(2), 37M Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39B(1) Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 16.02, 16.21, 16.21(1)(c), 16.21(1)(d), 16.21(1)(e), 26.01 Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) s 14
Cases cited:	Allstate Life Insurance Co v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd(1994) 217 ALR 226 Attorney-General v Wentworth (1988) 14 NSWLR 481 Bartlett v Swan Television & Radio Broadcasters Pty Ltd [1995] FCA 638; ATPR 41-434 Batistatos v Roads and Traffic Authority (NSW) (2006) 226 CLR 256 Breen v Williams(1996) 186 CLR 71 Byrnes v Majak[2020] NSWSC 906 Cavill Business Solutions Pty Ltd v Jackson [2005] WASC 138 Chandrasekaran v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2)[2019] FCA 1490 Chandrasekaran v Commonwealth of Australia[2019] FCA 1169 Chandrasekaran v Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists[2019] FCA 1687 Chandrasekaran v Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists[2020] FCA 214 Chandrasekaran v Western Sydney Local Health District (No 7)[2019] NSWSC 567 Clavel v Savage[2013] NSWSC 775 Clavel v Savage[2015] NSWCA 61 Corrs Pavey Whiting & Byrne v Collector of Customs (Vic)(1987) 14 FCR 434 Council for the City of the Gold Coast v Pioneer Concrete (Qld) Pty Ltd[1998] FCA 791; 157 ALR 135 Fair Work Ombudsman v Eastern Colour Pty Ltd[2011] FCA 803; 209 IR 263 Federal Commissioner of Taxation v United Aircraft Corporation(1943) 68 CLR 525 Fuller v Toms (2012) 247 FCR 440 Gallo v Attorney-General (unreported, Supreme Court of Victoria, Full Court, 4 September 1984) Hoath v Connect Internet Services Pty Ltd[2006] NSWSC 158 Hobbs v Petersham Transport Co Pty Ltd(1971) 124 CLR 220 J C Techforce Pty Ltd v Pearce [1996] FCA 599; 138 ALR 522 Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1 Matthews v State of Queensland [2015] FCA 1488 Odeh v State of New South Wales[2019] NSWSC 342 Palmer Bruyn v Parsons(2001) 208 CLR 388 Polar Aviation Pty Ltd v Civil Aviation Safety Authority (2012) 203 FCR 325 Ratcliffe v Evans[1892] 2 QB 524 Rogers v The Queen(1994) 181 CLR 251 Shelton v National Roads and Motorists Association Ltd[2004] FCA 1393; 51 ACSR 278 Spencer v The Commonwealth(2010) 241 CLR 118 Spiteri v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd[2008] FCA 905 Tomlinson v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 507 Trade Practices Commission v Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd(1990) 22 FCR 305 Trade Practices Commission v Pioneer Concrete (Qld) Pty Ltd (1994) 52 FCR 164 UBS AG v Tyne (2018) 265 CLR 77 Von Reisner v Commonwealth(2009) 177 FCR 531 White Industries Australia Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation(2007) 160 FCR 298 Wilkinson v Downton[1897] 2 QB 57 Williams v Spautz(1992) 174 CLR 509
Division:	General Division
Registry:	New South Wales
National Practice Area:	Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Number of paragraphs:	189
Date of hearing:	20 November 2019 and 4 March 2020
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr P E King (4 March 2020)
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Mr M Davis of Mark Davis Legal (20 November 2019)
Counsel for the First Respondent:	Ms K Hooper
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Counsel for the Second Respondent:	Mr A Stafford
Solicitor for the Second Respondent:	New South Wales Crown Solicitor’s Office
Solicitor for the Third Respondent:	Mr M Hamwood of HWL Ebsworth Lawyers

ORDERS

		NSD 974 of 2019
BETWEEN:	SUJATHA CHANDRASEKARAN Applicant
AND:	COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA First Respondent ; STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES Second Respondent ; AUSTRALIAN CENTRE FOR ADVANCED COMPUTING COMMUNICATIONS PTY LTD Third Respondent

order made by:	WIGNEY J
DATE OF ORDER:	11 november 2020

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Judgment is entered in favour of the first respondent against the applicant pursuant to s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and r 26.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).

2. Judgment is entered in favour of the second respondent against the applicant pursuant to s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and r 26.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).

3. Judgment is entered in favour of the third respondent against the applicant pursuant to s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and r 26.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).

4. The applicant pay the costs of the first, second and third respondents.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

WIGNEY J:

1. The applicant in this matter, Dr Sujatha Chandrasekaran, has commenced and seeks to prosecute a proceeding in this Court against the Commonwealth of Australia, the State of New South Wales and the Australian Centre for Advanced Computing Communications Pty Ltd (AC3). In the proceeding, Dr Chandrasekaran makes extremely serious and extraordinary, if not somewhat bizarre, allegations against the Commonwealth, the Department of Defence, unspecified “servants or agents” of the Commonwealth and Defence, the State, the New South Wales Ministry of Health (branded NSW Health), the Medical Council of New South Wales, the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) and various psychiatrists said to be employed by NSW Health, the Medical Council or AHPRA.

2. Dr Chandrasekaran’s case against the Commonwealth, the State and AC3 has evolved over time. She has filed numerous interlocutory applications and several lengthy and astonishing affidavits. There has also been...