Luck v Secretary, Services Australia

Luck v Secretary, Department of Human Services (No 3) [2019] FCA 1335 (O'Callaghan J)

Luck v Secretary, Department of Human Services (No 4) [2019] FCA 2071 (Anderson J)

Gaye Luck v University of Southern Queensland & Anor

Luck v University of Southern Queensland [2015] FCA 286 (Davies J)

Application for Bankruptcy notice to be set aside, in respect of Ms Luck's debt to the University of Southern Queensland. Application dismissed with costs.

Luck v University of Southern Queensland [2016] FCAFC 167 (Collier, Jessup and Katzmann JJ)

An appeal against the decision of Davies J. Ms Luck also made an application for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal, and for a stay.

Ms Luck did not appear at the hearing. Interlocutory application dismissed. Appeal dismissed with costs.

Luck v University of Southern Queensland [2018] FCAFC 102 (Logan, Mortimer, Charlesworth JJ)

Appeal from judgment in MLG737/2015, concerning the exercise of power by a Registrar to extend the life of a petition corrective order made after the bankruptcy petition would otherwise have expired. Appeal dismissed by 2:1 majority.

Luck v University of Southern Queensland (No 2) [2018] FCA 1297 (Logan J)

Application made for stay pending the determination of Ms Luck's application for special leave to the High Court. Stay granted pending determination of special leave.

Gaye Alexandra Luck v A Registrar of the Federal Court of Australia

Application for judicial review of the decision of a Registrar to refuse, under Rule 2.26 of the Rules, to accept an application of Ms Luck for filing (Lodgment ID 1273399) which sought judicial review of a refusal of the High Court registry to accept one of Ms Luck's applications.

Luck v Secretary, Services Australia [2024] FCA 1158 (Dowling J)

Application for judicial review of the Respondent's decision to cancel her mobility allowance. Proceedings dismissed with costs. Dowling J determined that the applicant had available other avenues of review and redress of the impugned decision which had not been exhausted.

Luck v Secretary, Services Australia [2025] FCAFC 26 (Rofe, Kennett and Hespe JJ)

Ms Luck filed a notice of appeal against the decision of Dowling J in [2024] FCA 1158. Interlocutory application made for stay of proceedings pending determination of recusal applications against Rofe and Kennett JJ. Recusal applications and interlocutory application dismissed. Appeal dismissed.

Gaye Luck v The National Duty Registrar of the Federal Court of Australia

Luck v National Duty Registrar of the Federal Court of Australia (Permanent Stay) [2024] FCA 1257 (Wheelahan J)

Application for judicial review of a decision of the National Duty Registrar to refuse filing of Ms Luck's judicial review application (Lodgment ID 1325345), seeking review of Kiefel CJ's decision in [2023] HCATrans 127, which was to refuse leave to file a purported appeal. Application permanently stayed as an abuse of process.

Gaye Luck v Principal Registrar and Chief Executive Officer of the Federal Court of Australia

Luck v Principal Registrar and Chief Executive Officer of the Federal Court of Australia (Permanent Stay) [2024] FCA 1256 (Wheelahan J)

Application for judicial review of the alleged failure of the Principal Registrar and CEO to make a decision to accept or reject for filing a judicial review application lodged on 15 July 2024 (Lodgment ID 1343873), which pertained to the refusal by the Registry of the Supreme Court of Victoria to accept an application for waiver of filing fees. Proceeding permanently stayed. The rejected documents represented an attempt to abuse the Court's processes; there was no reviewable error.

Luck v Principal Registrar and Chief Executive Officer of the Federal Court of Australia [2024] FCA 1161 (Wheelahan J)

Ms Luck made an interlocutory application for a hearing in the matter to be expedited, and for leave to amend her application.

Ms Luck also made orally a recusal application, based on apprehended bias arising from availability of a video link for members of the public to view proceedings. Recusal application dismissed.

Luck v Commonwealth of Australia [2025] FCA 68 (Dowling J)

Recusal application made based on apprehended bias arising from Dowling J's previous dismissal of one of Ms Luck's other proceedings. Recusal application dismissed.

Luck v Hunter & Ors M96/2000 [2000] HCATrans 620; Luck v Browne & Ors M97/2000 [2000] HCATrans 618; Luck v CSR Limited (Bradford Insulation Group) & Ors M98/2000 [2000] HCATrans 619; Luck v Townsville City Council & Ors M99/2000 [2000] HCATrans 621 (Hayne J)

Ms Luck applied for special leave to appeal against the orders of the Full Court of the FCA in Luck v Hunter [2000] FCA 1216, in which she unsuccessfully challenged the decision of Weinberg J to transfer the four proceedings (VID392/2000, VID393/2000, VID394/2000 and VID541/2000) to the Queensland Registry.

Special leave applications in each matter dismissed.

(unpublished - referred to in [2002] HCATrans 624) (Gleeson CJ)

Ms Luck sought to file a writ and summons which Callinan J thought had so little substance that his Honour directed the Registrar not to allow the process to be issued without leave. Ms Luck then sought leave to issue the writ of summons and statement of claim, which named 32 defendants including judges of the HCA, FCA and SCV among others, whom Ms Luck claimed had tortured her.

In the matter of an appeal by Gaye Alexandra Mary Luck

Luck, an appeal by M11/2001 [2002] HCATrans 624 (Gaudron J)

Ms Luck filed an appeal against the decision of Gleeson CJ above. Gaudron J walked Ms Luck through the process of filing her written submissions and appeal book, and set a date allowing sufficient time. The balance of Ms Luck's summons were adjourned sine die - joinder sought by Ms Luck could not be ordered until Ms Luck established an arguable claim.

Luck, An appeal by [2003] HCATrans 333 (McHugh ACJ, Gummow and Heydon JJ)

Ms Luck attempted to bring a notice of motion for her applications for various constitutional writs to be heard by the Bench of three Justices, despite that the fact that the listing had been for a hearing of the substantive appeal. Ms Luck's notice of motion dismissed. Appeal stood over to be dealt with on the papers.

Re Luck [2003] HCA 70; (2003) 203 ALR 1; (2003) 78 ALJR 177 (McHugh ACJ, Gummow and Heydon JJ)

Appeal in above proceedings struck out as incompetent. The decision the subject of the appeal was for the making of an interlocutory order, which required Ms Luck to seek leave in order to appeal it, which she did not. In any case, leave would have been refused; the appeal would have no prospect of success in that the writ of summons disclosed no cause of action.

Gaye Luck v Chief Executive Officer of Centrelink & Anor;

Luck v Chief Executive Officer of Centrelink & Anor [2009] HCATrans 232 (Crennan J)

Ms Luck filed two applications for special leave to appeal against the judgments of the FCAFC in VID54/2009 on 7 and 15 May 2009, and in VID899/2008 delivered on 19 June 2009. Ms Luck sought to extend the time within which to file and serve a summary of argument and draft notice of appeal in each matter, after failing to meet an initial deadline. Crennan J granted extension of time until 30/10/2009; matter adjourned.

Luck v Chief Executive Officer of Centrelink & Anor; Luck v University of Southern Queensland [2010] HCATrans 74 (Crennan J)

Ms Luck filed a summons on 29/10/2009 seeking a further extension of time. She also sought adjournment of both matters, as well as an order staying pending matters in the FCA, on the basis that Ms Luck is unable to attend to the litigation across both courts. Extension of time granted until 23/04/2010; matter adjourned. Application for stay refused.

Luck v Chief Executive Officer of Centrelink & Anor; Luck v University of Southern Queensland [2010] HCATrans 116 (Crennan J)

By letters on 30/03, 21/04 and 27/04, Ms Luck claimed she was unable to file the summaries of argument and sought an adjournment or stay as she felt unable to cope with the hearings. Counsel submitted an order should be made that both proceedings be deemed abandoned per r 41.10.4 of the High Court Rules, as the summary of argument had still not been filed 11 months after the application was filed. Ms Luck did not appear at the hearing. Proceedings deemed abandoned, emphasising prejudice to respondents. Crennan J refused a recusal application made by Ms Luck.

Luck v Federal Court of Australia & Ors [2010] HCATrans 75 (Crennan J)

Ms Luck filed an application for an order to show cause, seeking mandamus and other prerogative relief and for declarations and injunctions against various defendants. She then filed affidavits adding a number of defendants and seeking an extension of time within which to file supporting affidavits, whilst also seeking a hearing for an application for urgent injunctive relief to require Deakin University (where she had been a student) and its CEO to provide access to her alleged personal record. Timetabling orders made.

Luck v Federal Court of Australia & Ors [2010] HCATrans 86 (Crennan J)

Ms Luck's interlocutory application was heard. The injunction sought to require the defendants to cease what was alleged to be disability and racial discrimination, harassment and victimisation, arising from various occurrences in Ms Luck's classes and administrative dealings with the University; to compel them to allow her to attend class from which she had been excluded due to misconduct allegations brought by various staff members against Ms Luck; and to compel them to give access to her student records. The defendants provided evidence to the contrary that one of the lecturers had been granted sick leave for stress resulting from his interactions with Ms Luck, and that the entirety of the visual arts academic staff had indicated they were unwilling to lecture or tutor Ms Luck. Application for interlocutory injunctive relief refused; no prima facie case established, and supervision of the injunction would be impracticable.

Luck v Federal Court of Australia & Ors [2010] HCASL 146 (French, Bell JJ)

Ms Luck filed a notice to appeal the interlocutory judgment of Crennan J, on the grounds that she was denied natural justice and 'statutory human rights'. She also sought the same injunctive relief. Special leave application dismissed for want of merit, and summons struck out as an abuse of process.

Gaye Luck v Secretary of the Department of Human Services & Ors

Luck v Secretary of the Department of Human Services & Ors [2010] HCATrans 76 (Crennan J)

Ms Luck made an application for removal of the FCA proceedings VID65/2010, along with various interlocutory applications for relief. Application for interlocutory relief dismissed with costs.

Luck v Secretary of the Department of Human Services & Ors [2010] HCASL 147 (French, Bell JJ)

Ms Luck sought to appeal from the interlocutory decision of Crennan J in [2010] HCATrans 76, on the grounds of a denial of natural justice and 'statutory human rights', with an unparticularised assertion that Crennan J "erred in domestic and international law". Application dismissed - no leave sought and even if it were, the appeal had no prospect of success.

Gaye Luck v CEO of Centrelink (Freedom of Information Principal Officer);

Luck v Federal Court of Australia & Ors; Luck v Secretary of DHS & Ors; Luck v CEO of Centrelink (Freedom of Information Principal Officer); Luck v AHRC & Ors [2010] HCATrans 152 (Crennan J)

The respondents in each of these various matters sought that the applications be stayed, or dismissed, or that they be removed from proceedings. On 03/06/2010 Ms Luck applied, by letter, to have these matters stayed or adjourned for two months due to her disabilities, attaching a medical certificate, and pending determination of another HCA proceeding. Proceedings in all four matters adjourned.

Luck v Federal Court of Australia & Ors [2010] HCATrans 210 (Crennan J)

Proceedings further adjourned on Ms Luck's request.

Luck v Secretary of the Department of Human Services & Ors [2010] HCATrans 212 (Crennan J)

Proceedings further adjourned on Ms Luck's request.

Gaye Luck v CEO of Centrelink (Freedom of Information Principal Officer)

Luck v Chief Executive Officer of Centrelink (Freedom of Information Principal Officer) [2010] HCATrans 241 (Crennan J)

Proceedings further adjourned on Ms Luck's request.

Luck v Australian Human Rights Commission & Ors [2010] HCATrans 244 (Crennan J)

Proceedings further adjourned on Ms Luck's request.

Gaye Luck v CEO of Centrelink (Freedom of Information Principal Officer);

Gaye Luck v AHRC & Ors; Gaye Luck v University of Southern Queensland

Luck v Federal Court of Australia & Ors; Luck v Secretary of the Department of Human Services & Ors; Luck v Chief Executive Officer of Centrelink (FOI Principal Officer); Luck v Australian Human Rights Commission & Ors; Luck v University of Southern Queensland [2011] HCATrans 261 (Crennan J)

Ms Luck failed to appear at the scheduled directions hearing; hearing set down.

Counsel also raised orally the matters of M8 and M9/2010, which Ms Luck filed on 09/02/2010, being removal applications for proceedings in the FCA (VID899/2008 & VID476/2008), which had since been dismissed by Bromberg J on 21/04/2011. Both M8 and M9/2010 dismissed. As there was no longer any matter pending in the FCA, the jurisdiction of the Court for removal pursuant to s 40 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) was no longer engaged.

Gaye Luck v CEO of Centrelink (Freedom of Information Principal Officer);

Luck v Federal Court of Australia & Ors; Luck v Secretary of the Department of Human Services & Ors; Luck v Chief Executive Officer of Centrelink (FOI Principal Officer); Luck v Australian Human Rights Commission & Ors [2011] HCATrans 288 (Crennan J)

Ms Luck failed to appear at the scheduled hearing. Counsel made submissions relaying the procedural history of the four matters before the Court, and in support of summonses pursuant to rule 27.09.4 'for a permanent stay of the various proceedings on the basis that they are vexatious or an abuse of process and because they fail to show a cause of action.' Proceedings adjourned for judgment delivery.

Luck v Federal Court of Australia & Ors; Luck v Secretary of the Department of Human Services & Ors; Luck v Chief Executive Officer of Centrelink (FOI Principal Officer); Luck v Australian Human Rights Commission & Ors [2011] HCATrans 290 (Crennan J)

Applications in all four proceedings dismissed as vexatious and an abuse of process per r 27.09.4 of the High Court Rules. The applications each had no prospects of success, and with respect to M52, concerned interlocutory orders far removed from substantive issues.

Crennan J gave careful consideration to Ms Luck's medical conditions, grief, and difficulties as a self-represented litigant, but her Honour determined that the point had been reached that the proceedings could not continue to be delayed. Recusal application refused. No particulars or submissions were made in support of this application.

Gaye Luck v The Deputy Registrar (RM) of the High Court of Australia - Melbourne Office of the Registry & Ors

Luck v The Deputy Registrar (RM) of the High Court of Australia - Melbourne Office of the Registry & Ors [2013] HCATrans 14 (Gageler J)

Ms Luck filed an application for an order to show cause in the Court's original jurisdiction, seeking writs and injunctions directed to officers of the High Court Registry, the Attorney-General and the Commonwealth. Ms Luck was aggrieved by various decisions of the Registry and the Court to refuse to accept Ms Luck's applications that did not comply with the High Court Rules, or otherwise disposed of them in accord with the Rules, and alleged that the Deputy Registrar engaged in intimidating and threatening conduct. Procedural directions made to prepare for hearing.

Luck v The Deputy Registrar of the High Court of Australia & Ors [2013] HCATrans 86 (Gageler J)

The day before the scheduled hearing, Ms Luck filed a summons seeking among other things an extension of time for compliance with directions as to the filing and service of affidavits. Gageler J permitted enlargement of time as requested in the summons, and the transfer of the file, but otherwise dismissed the summons. Proceedings were adjourned as Ms Luck was too distressed to continue with the hearing of the final application.

Luck v The Deputy Registrar (RM) of the High Court of Australia - Melbourne Office of the Registry and Ors [2013] HCATrans 166 (Gageler J)

The Attorney-General filed a summons on 03/06/2013 seeking orders that Ms Luck's third amended application be dismissed pursuant to r 25.03.3 of the Rules, or alternatively, seeking judgment for the defendants per r 27.09.4. Ms Luck sought the recusal of Gageler J, on the basis of apprehended bias said to arise from his Honour's prior rulings. Recusal application and amended application both dismissed as without foundation.

Gaye Luck v The Deputy Registrar (RM) of the High Court of Australia - Melbourne Office of the Registry & Ors

Luck v Deputy Registrar (RM) of the High Court of Australia - Melbourne Office of the Registry [2014] HCASL 33 (Kiefel, Keane JJ)

Ms Luck sought leave to appeal from the decision of Gageler J in [2013] HCATrans 166. Special leave application dismissed. Ms Luck's written case did not articulate leave questions; nothing was submitted to suggest the decision of Gageler J was in error and the application had no prospects of success.

Gaye Luck v University of Southern Queensland and Anor

Luck v University of Southern Queensland and Anor [2013] HCATrans 163 (Gageler J)

Ms Luck filed an application for removal of proceedings VID357/2009 pending in the FCA, on the basis of apprehended bias by Tracey J in determining that matter. Ms Luck failed to file and serve a summary of argument within 28 days as required by r 26.03 of the Rules, or likewise by the various due dates following several extensions of time sought by and granted to Ms Luck, the application was deemed abandoned on that date as a result. Ms Luck's further summons seeking an extension of time dismissed.

Gaye Luck v University of Southern Queensland and Anor

Luck v University of Southern Queensland & Anor [2014] HCASL 34 (Kiefel, Keane JJ)

Ms Luck sought leave to appeal from the decision of Gageler J immediately above. Leave refused on the basis that Gageler J's decision was clearly correct, and an appeal would enjoy no prospects of success. The proceedings sought to be removed had since been dismissed.

Gaye Luck v Brian James (Member of Victoria Police); Gaye Luck v Trent Delaney (Member of Victoria Police)

Luck v James; Luck v Delaney [2015] HCASL 208 (Nettle, Gordon JJ)

Ms Luck filed applications seeking removal of criminal prosecutions against her for breach of interim intervention orders, in the MCV, B12684787 and B13324610. Removal application refused. The application was without merit; no arguable constitutional issue was advanced, but even if one was, it would have been wrong to remove the proceedings. Recusal dismissed.

Gaye Luck v Principal Officer of Peninsula Health and Anor

Luck v Principal Officer of Peninsula Health and Anor [2015] HCASL 207 (Nettle, Gordon JJ)

Application for removal from the SCV of proceedings SCi 2753/2012 and SCi 2756/2012, being applications for leave to appeal from decisions of VCAT in No. G945/2011 and No. G946/2011. Removal application refused on the same basis as above. Recusal application also dismissed.

Luck v Coroner Spanos and Ors [2015] HCASL 209 (Nettle, Gordon JJ)

Application for removal from the SCV of an application for extension of time under s 86 of the Coroners Act 2008 (Vic) to appeal from a decision of the first respondent that the death of Ms Luck's mother on 20/06/2010 was not a reportable death. Removal sought on the basis of an apprehension of bias by the SCV. Removal application refused on the same basis as above.

Gaye Luck v Principal Officer of Victoria Police and Anor

Luck v Principal Officer of Victoria Police and Anor [2013] HCATrans 164 (Gageler J)

Ms Luck sought special leave to appeal from the decision of the SCV CoA dismissing her application for leave to appeal from the decisions of Macnamara VP in [2015] VCAT 71, and [2012] VCAT 1617. Rule 41.10 of the Rules required Ms Luck to file her written case in support by 12/07/2013; Ms Luck did not comply and the application was taken to be abandoned. Ms Luck sought an extension of time, which was refused.

Gaye Luck v Principal Officer of Victoria Police & Anor

Luck v Principal Officer of Victoria Police & Anor [2014] HCASL 35 (Kiefel, Keane JJ)

Ms Luck sought leave to appeal from the decision of Gageler J immediately above; her application for leave was dismissed on the basis that the appeal would have enjoyed no prospects of success.

Gaye Luck v Principal Officer of Department of Justice and Anor

Luck v Principal Officer of Department of Justice and Anor [2013] HCATrans 165 (Gageler J)

Ms Luck sought special leave to appeal from the decision of the SCV CoA dismissing her application for leave to appeal from the decision of Macnamara VP in [2013] VCAT 416. Ms Luck required an extension of time which was refused. On the same basis as above.

Gaye Luck v Principal Officer of Department of Justice and Anor

Luck v Principal Officer of Department of Justice & Anor [2014] HCASL 36 (Kiefel, Keane JJ)

Ms Luck sought leave to appeal from the decision of Gageler J immediately above; her application for leave was dismissed on the basis that the appeal would have enjoyed no prospects of success.

Luck v Principal Officer of IBAC & Anor [2015] HCASL 217 (Kiefel, Keane JJ)

Ms Luck sought leave to appeal from the decision of Warren CJ and Whelan JA in [2014] VSCA 239, including an extension of time within which she could do so. Special leave application dismissed.

Gaye Luck v University of Southern Queensland & Anor

Luck v University of Southern Queensland & Anor [2015] HCASL 136 (Nettle, Gordon JJ)

Application for special leave to appeal from the Full Court of the Federal Court's decision to dismiss an appeal in VID1158/2013. Special Leave application dismissed. The application did not advance any reason to doubt the correctness of the Full Court's decision, which was plainly correct.

Gaye Luck v University of Southern Queensland & Anor; Gaye Luck v Chief Executive Officer of Centrelink & Anor; Gaye Luck v Secretary Department of Human Services & Ors; Gaye Luck v Chief Executive Officer of Centrelink (Freedom of Information Principal Officer)

Luck v University of Southern Queensland & Anor; Luck v Chief Executive Officer of Centrelink & Anor; Luck v Secretary Department of Human Services & Ors; Luck v Chief Executive Officer of Centrelink (Freedom of Information Principal Officer) [2015] HCATrans 125 (Nettle J)

Ms Luck sought to consolidate a number of her applications for removal to the High Court of proceedings pending in the FCC and FCA, together with her application in M116/2014 for special leave to appeal from the FCAFC in VID1158/2013. The proceedings sought to be removed were the bankruptcy notice appeal in VID189/2015; the judicial review applications in VID488/2008 and VID444/2008; the appeals against orders of Tracey J being VID512/2014, VID898/2008; and the application brought against Ms Luck for a sequestration order in MLG737/2015.

Ms Luck did not appear at the hearing. Applications for stay dismissed in each matter. His Honour was not persuaded on the basis of Ms Luck's material that a stay would be necessary or justified.

Gaye Luck v University of Southern Queensland & Anor

Luck v University of Southern Queensland & Anor [2016] HCASL 286 (Kiefel, Keane JJ)

Ms Luck sought to remove an application from the proceeding below. Removal application dismissed, and summons dismissed, with costs. No sufficient reason was shown to warrant interference with the ordinary appeal process by granting removal; nor for Ms Luck's interlocutory summons.

Gaye Luck v University of Southern Queensland & Anor

Luck v University of Southern Queensland & Anor [2016] HCASL 287 (Kiefel, Keane JJ)

Ms Luck sought to remove an application from a proceeding below. Dismissed for the same reason as above.

Luck v University of Southern Queensland [2017] HCASL 75 (Bell, Gageler JJ)

Application for special leave to appeal from the Full Court's judgment in VID189/2015. Special leave refused. The application as amended disclosed no reason to doubt the correctness of the Full Court's decision.

Luck v University of Southern Queensland [2019] HCASL 20 (Nettle, Gordon JJ)

Application for special leave to appeal from the Full Court's judgment in VID396/2017. Special leave refused. Questions raised in the amended application were contrary to authority and would enjoy no prospect of success.

Gaye Luck v Chief Executive Officer of Centrelink (Freedom of Information Principal Officer)

Luck v Chief Executive Officer of Centrelink (Freedom of Information Principal Officer) [2016] HCASL 282 (Kiefel, Keane JJ)

Application for special leave to appeal from the Full Court's decision dated 03/06/2015 in VID512/2014, to dismiss Ms Luck's interlocutory application for stay or adjournment. Application for leave and extension of time dismissed. The proposed appeal did not enjoy sufficient prospects of success.

Gaye Luck v Chief Executive Officer of Centrelink (Freedom of Information Principal Officer)

Luck v Chief Executive Officer of Centrelink (Freedom of Information Principal Officer) [2016] HCASL 283 (Kiefel, Keane JJ)

Application for special leave to appeal from the Full Court's decision in VID898/2008. Application for leave and extension of time dismissed. The proposed appeal did not enjoy sufficient prospects of success.

Gaye Luck v Chief Executive Officer of Centrelink & Anor

Luck v Chief Executive Officer of Centrelink & Anor [2016] HCASL 288 (Kiefel, Keane JJ)

Application for leave to file a summary of argument of more than 10 pages in support of Ms Luck's application to remove this matter from the Federal Court and various orders. Special leave application dismissed. No basis for a removal application was established, and the subject decision was interlocutory such that any appeal would be incompetent.

Gaye Luck v Secretary of Department of Human Services & Ors

Luck v Secretary of Department of Human Services & Ors [2016] HCASL 289 (Kiefel, Keane JJ)

Application for leave to file a summary of argument of more than 10 pages in support of Ms Luck's application to remove this matter from the Federal Court and various orders. Removal application dismissed. No sufficient reason to interfere with the ordinary appeals process was given.

Luck v Chief Executive Officer of Centrelink [2017] HCASL 276 (Gordon, Edelman JJ)

Application for special leave to appeal from the Full Court's judgment in VID 921/ 2015. Special leave application dismissed. No question of law or arguable ground was identified that was sufficient to warrant grant of leave; the appeal would enjoy no prospect of success.

In the matter of an application by Luck for leave to issue or file

(Bell J) (unpublished - reasons for decision not publicly available see: Public Access Documents - High Court of Australia)

Ms Luck made an ex parte application for leave to issue or file a proposed writ of summons which proposed to challenge decisions of the Federal Court. Application refused. To grant leave would permit Ms Luck to bypass ordinary mechanisms of appeal and potentially avoid statutory limitations; the particulars were incoherent and to proceed would be an abuse of process

In the matter of an application by Gaye Luck for leave to appeal

In the matter of an application by Gaye Luck for leave to appeal [2022] HCASL 177 (Keane, Gordon JJ)

Ms Luck sought to appeal the decision of Bell J in M19 of 2020. Special leave refused. An appeal would enjoy no prospect of success.

(Bell J) (unpublished- referred to in M62/2021 in reasons of Steward J; see also Public Access Documents - High Court of Australia)

Ms Luck filed voluminous materials in an application for certain constitutional writs. Application dismissed.

(Bell J (presumably)) (unpublished- reasons for decision not publicly available: see Public Access Documents - High Court of Australia)

Ms Luck filed a further application for certain constitutional writs. It is unclear whether this application was likewise dismissed.

Luck v Federal Court of Australia & Ors [2022] HCASL 178 (Keane, Edelman JJ)

Ms Luck sought leave to appeal, out of time, from one of the decisions of Bell J on 04/08/2020 which dismissed her application for constitutional writs (it is unclear from the reasons whether this was M20 or M21 of 2020). Special leave application dismissed.

(Steward J) (unpublished- not available for download see: Public Access Documents - High Court of Australia)

Ms Luck applied for removal of proceedings from the County Court of Victoria. Interlocutory application dismissed without hearing per r 13.03.1 of the Rules.

Luck v Nell [2022] HCASL 179 (Keane, Edelman JJ)

Removal application dismissed. The application did not raise any cause or part of a cause arising under the Constitution as required by s 40 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). It was 'manifestly hopeless... an abuse of process and should be dismissed.'

Luck v Nell [2022] HCASL 180 (Keane, Edelman JJ)

Ms Luck sought to appeal from the interlocutory order of Steward J on 10/12/2021 in M62 of 2021. Leave application dismissed. The decision of Steward J was 'plainly correct' and the application had no prospects of success.

Luck v Secretary of Services Australia & Ors [2023] HCASL 62 (Gageler, Jagot JJ)

Ms Luck sought an extension of time within which to apply for special leave to appeal from the Full Court's judgment in VID1044/2016. Special leave application and extension of time application dismissed. The application raised no question of general legal principle and disclosed no reason to doubt the correctness of the Full Court's decision.

Luck v Bunnings Group Limited & Ors [2022] HCATrans 74 (Gleeson J)

Ms Luck sought declarations of negligence, breach of statutory duty, and disability discrimination she suffered, as a result of being denied entry to the premises of the first and second defendants because she did not have proof of vaccination against COVID-19 or acceptable evidence of a medical exemption. Proceedings adjourned. Ms Luck filed an application seeking an urgent directions hearing, injunctive relief and more, which was refused.

Luck v Bunnings Group Limited & Ors [2022] HCATrans 75 (Gleeson J)

Amended application as against the first two defendants summarily dismissed under r 28.01.02; the balance of proceedings against the third and fourth defendants also dismissed. No arguable cause of action was identified for Ms Luck's allegations.

Luck v Bunnings Group Limited & Ors [2023] HCASL 133 (Gageler, Jagot JJ)

Ms Luck sought an extension of time within which to apply for special leave to appeal from the decisions of Gleeson J made in M77 of 2021. Application for extension of time dismissed. There was no reason to doubt the correctness of Gleeson J's decisions, and it would have been futile to grant an extension of time.

Kuperman v Permanent Trustee Australia Limited [2023] HCASL 109 (Edelman, Gleeson CJ)

Application for leave to appeal from the decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal in No 13003 of 2022. Special leave refused. The decision in the Court of Appeal was 'plainly correct' and the appeal had no prospects of success.

In the matter of - an application by Gaye Alexandra Kuperman for leave to issue or file

Kuperman, In the matter of an application for leave to issue or file [2023] HCATrans 127 (Kiefel CJ)

Ms Luck sought leave to issue or file an appeal against the decision of Edelman and Gleeson JJ in B25/2023. She sought this leave after an initial notice of appeal she attempted to file on 22/08/2023 was refused for filing because leave had not first been obtained. Application refused.

Luck v VP Jack A Henderson [2023] HCASL 162 (Gordon, Steward JJ)

Ms Luck sought removal of a cause pending in the MCV, relating to an interim intervention order made against her. She also filed two applications seeking interlocutory relief and sought recusal of Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward and Jagot JJ. Application and interlocutory applications dismissed with costs. The application was considered misconceived.

In the matter of - an application by Gaye Luck for leave to issue or file

Luck, In the matter of an application for leave to issue or file [2023] HCATrans 112 (Gordon J)

An ex parte application for leave to issue or file a writ of summons against seven defendants alleging breaches of duties and negligence or discrimination by multifarious entities. The claims allege Ms Luck was discriminated against as a consequence of her experience in crisis housing experiencing 'exposure to drug, chemical and other noxious fumes and smoke drift, seeping into [her] unit through all cracks, crevices, doors and windows' and emanating from her neighbour. Application refused.

(unpublished - referred to in [2023] QCA 54) (Burnett DCJ)

In 1998 Ms Luck filed a claim for damages in the amount of $250,000 against the respondent owner of a shopping centre, for personal injury she allegedly suffered as a result of slipping on wet tiles on a walkway between the carpark and shopping centre. Ms Luck later filed an amended statement of loss claiming (mostly aggravated and exemplary) damages of more than $3.9 billion, without pleadings in support. After a 19-year delay in prosecuting the proceedings, Ms Luck filed an application for leave to proceed, whilst the respondent filed a cross-application to dismiss the proceeding for want of prosecution. Burnett DCJ dismissed the proceeding.

Gaye Alexandra Kuperman v Permanent Trustee Australia Limited

Kuperman v Permanent Trustee Australia Limited [2023] QCA 54 (Mullins P, Dalton JA, Bradley J)

Ms Luck appealed the decision immediately above. Appeal dismissed with costs.

The Court found no error in the primary judge's decision to refuse the application to proceed and to dismiss the proceedings. Their Honours held a great number of grounds of appeal put forward by Ms Luck had no merit.

(unpublished - referred to in [2023] VCC 1622)

Ms Luck applied for a personal safety intervention order against the respondent, which was refused.

Luck v Nell (Ruling) [2023] VCC 1622 (Robertson J)

Ms Luck appealed against the decision of the MCV above. Ms Luck requested an adjournment of a directions hearing on the basis of a medical certificate. Robertson J made orders adjourning the hearing, which noted Ms Luck's absence, but omitted to note that the respondent was also absent. Ms Luck sought recusal of Robertson J on that basis, which was refused as there was no logical connection between this omitted note (if it was even required to be noted) and any apprehension of bias. It is unclear whether the substantive matter concluded in the absence of a further published decision.

Gay [sic] Luck v Stephen Blamey and Associates Pty Ltd

Luck v Stephen Blamey & Associates Pty Ltd [2000] VSC 77 (Beach J)

Application for mandatory, interlocutory injunction to compel a medical practitioner, who previously treated Ms Luck and then determined he could assist her no further, to fulfil a contract of personal services to treat her.

Application dismissed. Beach J opined that a mandatory injunction for a contract to provide personal services is one the court is very reluctant to grant, especially on an interlocutory basis, and Ms Luck did not satisfy the Court that it would be appropriate in this case.

(Hargrave J) (unpublished - referred to in [2005] VSCA 210)

Ms Luck sought leave to appeal from VCAT's orders that her landlord must employ a tradesman to complete urgent repairs requested by Ms Luck, but that her landlord was not responsible for a previous tradesman's failure to complete them. She required an extension of time to do so which was refused by Master Evans. On appeal before the Practice Court, Ms Luck had not prepared to provide submissions on her substantive appeal and so provided none at the hearing, as she wanted an adjournment. Hargrave J dismissed Ms Luck's interlocutory applications for adjournment of the hearing, for an order requiring VCAT to provide a full transcript and original sound recordings of its hearing; and for an injunction to restrain VCAT from hearing another application brought by her landlord for possession of the premises, until her appeal was determined. After offering Ms Luck an opportunity to make submissions on the substantive appeal, to which she responded with disappointment about the result of the other applications "there would not be much point", Hargrave J proceeded to dismiss that appeal.

Luck v Renton & Ors [2005] VSCA 210 (Maxwell P and Harper AJA)

Ms Luck sought leave to appeal from Hargrave J's orders above. The appeal was dismissed with respect to most of the orders, but in the second of the three decisions in Ms Luck's favour identified in this table of proceedings, the appeal was allowed with respect to the application for leave to appeal from the orders of the Master. Their Honours remitted it for re-hearing in the Trial Division to allow Ms Luck procedural fairness, as they considered she was not given a satisfactory opportunity to present her arguments before Hargave J following the refusal of the adjournment request, albeit with their Honours saying 'nothing as to the merits of those applications'. It is unclear how the matter was decided on remittal, without a published decision.

Luck v Renton [2006] VSC 90 (Bongiorno J)

Ms Luck appealed from an order of Senior Master Mahony dismissing an application for leave to appeal from a ruling of a member of VCAT, handed down on 02/09/2005, which was a decision to adjourn the VCAT proceedings to allow them to be recorded, at Ms Luck's own request.

When pressed at the hearing to identify the question of law Ms Luck wished to raise on her appeal, Ms Luck refused to, walking out. Appeal dismissed.

Gaye Luck v Principal Officer of Peninsula Health and Anor

(unpublished - referred to in [2015] HCASL 207)

Ms Luck sought leave to appeal from the decision in [2012] VCAT 481 being to proceed with the hearing in Ms Luck's absence after she walked out of the Tribunal, alleging that this constituted disability discrimination.

It is unclear in the absence of a published decision whether these proceedings have finalised.

(Mukhtar AsJ) (unpublished - referred to in [2015] HCASL 209)

Ms Luck filed an application for extension of time under s 86 of the Coroners Act 2008 (Vic) to appeal from a finding of the first respondent that the death of Ms Luck's mother on 20/06/2010 was not a reportable death. Mukhtar AsJ ordered that the application be adjourned pending the determination of Ms Luck's removal application to the High Court in M58/2012, which was unsuccessful. It is unclear in the absence of a published decision whether these proceedings subsequently finalised.

Gaye Luck v Principal Officer of Independent Broad-Based Anti-Corruption Commission & Anor

Luck v Principal Officer of IBAC [2014] VSCA 239 (Warren CJ, Whelan JA)

Ms Luck sought leave to appeal from the decision in [2013] VCAT 1805, summarily dismissing the application for FOI review. Ms Luck also sought to appeal against the decision not to order that the Tribunal's reasons be suppressed. In the course of proceedings, Ms Luck sought an adjournment on the basis of pending High Court matters. Applications for adjournment and for leave to appeal refused.

Ms Luck sought the recusal of Warren CJ on the basis of apprehended bias, which was also refused.

(Nettle, Ashley JJA) (unpublished - referred to in [2013] HCATrans 164)

Ms Luck sought leave to appeal from the decisions of Macnamara VP in [2015] VCAT 71, dismissing one FOI review, and [2012] VCAT 1617, notwithstanding that this second decision was in Ms Luck's favour, requiring Victoria Police to process that part of her FOI request.

One day before the hearing, Ms Luck sought an adjournment for, among other things, alleged medical symptoms of which she gave no evidence. Both applications for leave to appeal were heard together and dismissed, on the basis that Ms Luck failed to appear without any medical evidence given in support.

Gaye Luck v Principal Officer of Department of Justice

(Nettle, Ashley JJA) (unpublished - referred to in [2013] VCAT 1805 and [2013] HCATrans 165)

Ms Luck sought leave to appeal from the decision of Macnamara VP in [2013] VCAT 416 to strike out proceedings. Two days before the hearing, Ms Luck sought an adjournment and did not appear at the hearing.

Leave to appeal refused - even if there was some doubt about the scope of the Tribunal's power under s 78 of the VCAT Act to strike out proceedings in the relevant circumstances, the Tribunal's decision was not productive of substantial injustice, as a strike out does not dismiss proceedings and she could bring a fresh application if it were necessary.

(unpublished - referred to in [2006] VSC 90 and [2005] VSCA 210)

This application pertained to Ms Luck's tenancy dispute with her then-landlord Mr Renton, seeking an order requiring Mr Renton to carry out specified urgent repairs. The Tribunal adjourned these proceedings to allow for recording of the Tribunal hearing, apparently at Ms Luck's request. The order seeking urgent repairs was made, but the tradesmen employed by Mr Renton failed to complete repairs after a disagreement arose with Ms Luck at the premises and he left without finishing the job. When Ms Luck reopened the proceedings seeking compensation from Mr Renton for the tradesman's failure, the Tribunal determined that Mr Renton was not responsible for the tradesman's actions, but ordered Mr Renton to employ another tradesman to complete the repairs.

Luck v Peninsula Health (General) [2012] VCAT 481 (R. Davis SM)

Ms Luck sought documents from the respondent relating to her mother's hospital records and her own (as well as records relating to two children she said she escorted to the hospital), but the respondent alleged that certain of those documents did not exist. She then made applications to the Tribunal (one of them out of time), for those documents to be released. Ms Luck sought R Davis SM to recuse himself on the ground of bias, which was considered and refused.

Ms Luck walked out of the hearing saying she was sick, after interrupting the Senior Member and respondent's solicitor, and refusing R Davis SM's offer to adjourn proceedings if she felt unwell. The hearing continued in Ms Luck's absence, and at its conclusion procedural and case management orders were made allowing Ms Luck to file material in support of a request for an extension of time and for the existence of documents to be ascertained. In the absence of further published decisions it is unclear how this proceeding concluded.

Luck v Victoria Police FOI Division (General) [2012] VCAT 1617 (Macnamara VP) (unpublished - referred to at paras [5]-[6] of [2013] VCAT 2211)

Ms Luck sought access to extensive material through FOI relating to her dealings with Victoria Police, who sought to narrow the scope of her request. Ms Luck then commenced proceedings seeking an order that the request she made was not one which Vic Pol could refuse as too voluminous. In one of the three identified decisions in Ms Luck's favour across this table of proceedings, Macnamara VP made an interlocutory determination that part of Ms Luck's FOI request letter constituted a separate FOI request which was not so voluminous, obliging Victoria Police to process it. Remainder of the proceedings adjourned part-heard.

Luck v Victoria Police FOI Division (General) [2012] VCAT 1946 (Macnamara VP) (unpublished - referred to at para [7] of [2013] VCAT 2211)

In the same matter as immediately above, Ms Luck sought interlocutory orders from VCAT, requiring Victoria Police to grant her electronic access to certain documents in its LEAP system. Application dismissed - insofar as the grant of any access under the procedural powers of the VCAT Act was sought as a substitute for final relief under the FOI Act, it would be an abuse of process.

Luck v Victoria Police FOI Division (Review and Regulation) [2013] VCAT 2211 (Macnamara VP)

Following the interlocutory determinations in [2012] VCAT 1617 and [2012] VCAT 1946, Ms Luck initiated separate proceedings (heard together) reviewing a purported deemed decision of Victoria Police to refuse the documents requested by Ms Luck. The respondent sought for the application to be struck out as vexatious, on the basis that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding as Ms Luck had not invoked the relevant internal FOI review processes. Application summarily dismissed.

Luck v Victoria Police (Review and Regulation) [2013] VCAT 206 (unpublished - referred to in footnote 39 of 2013] VCAT 1805)

This appears to have been an interlocutory decision in the course of the same proceedings, however in the absence of publication or detailed reference to it, it is not clear what the decision was.

Luck v Police (Vic) [2015] VCAT 71 (Macnamara VP)

Victoria Police sought dismissal of these ongoing proceedings for want of prosecution or by way of strike out, citing disadvantage and expenses it would incur if the proceedings were indefinitely adjourned. Application struck out, Macnamara VP stating (at [8]):

'In the present situation whereby this matter has been adjourned from time to time, it is unsatisfactory for the parties and the Tribunal.'

Luck v Department of Justice [2013] VCAT 416 (Macnamara VP) (unpublished - referred to at paras [11]-[13] of [2013] VCAT 1805 and in [2013] HCATrans 165)

Ms Luck sought review of the respondent's decision to refuse to grant her access to documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Vic).

At a directions hearing, Ms Luck was observed using a recording device, and the Vice President directed her to turn it off, as the decision whether to record proceedings is at the Tribunal's discretion. Ms Luck refused to do so, and the hearing was briefly adjourned; upon return, Ms Luck had left the Tribunal. Application struck out pursuant to s 78 VCAT Act; by refusing to comply with a direction and by leaving the hearing Ms Luck had conducted the proceeding vexatiously.

Gaye Luck v Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission

Luck v Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (Review and Regulation) [2013] VCAT 1805 (Jenkins VP)

Ms Luck sought review of an internal review decision made by the respondent to refuse access to documents in the possession of the Office of Police Integrity (OPI) on the basis of exemption under s 51 of the Police Integrity Act 2008. The documents in question related to nine complaints regarding conduct of members of Victoria Police and Protective Service Officers. Ms Luck walked out, and the application was summarily dismissed (on the respondent's motion) as the documents Ms Luck sought access to were documents that would disclose information relating to an investigation under Part 3 of the PI Act, falling clearly within the exemption in s 51 of that Act. The refusal to release documents to Ms Luck was correct.

Gaye Luck v Secretary, Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs

Luck v Secretary, Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs [2000] AATA 4 (Gibbs SM)

Ms Luck sought review of a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal on 23/02/1999 to affirm the decision of a Centrelink delegate on 24/01/1998 to reject her application for rent assistance. The decision was itself already internally reviewed by Centrelink and affirmed. Review application dismissed; Ms Luck was not eligible for rent assistance under the AUSTUDY Regulations, due to her age and otherwise not meeting the circumstances prescribed by the Regulations.

Luck v Chief Executive Officer of Centrelink [2008] AATA 718 (Friedman SM)

Ms Luck applied for review of various decisions of the respondent and various agencies. The Tribunal held an interlocutory hearing to determine whether it had jurisdiction to determine the application, and determine the issues for consideration. Procedural and case management orders made.

Luck v University of Southern Queensland [2008] AATA 539 (Friedman SM)

Ms Luck applied for review of a deemed refusal of the University to release certain documents to her under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth). Application dismissed. The AAT had no jurisdiction to review a deemed refusal by the University to release documents under FOI, as the University was not established under a Commonwealth enactment as required by the FOI Act.

Luck v Department of Human Services [2009] AATA 800 (Forgie DP)

Ms Luck sought to review a decision made by the respondent in respect of her FOI requests made on 20 January, 9 and 16 February, and 10, 23 and 24 March 2009 (which was ostensibly a decision to release the available requested documents via CD). The Respondent contended that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to review the decision. Forgie DP made an interlocutory 'decision' to hold a hearing to determine what the decision under review actually was to determine the jurisdiction question.

Luck v Department of Human Services [2010] AATA 6 (Forgie DP)

On 21/10/2009, Ms Luck sought a stay of this matter until the High Court had considered her application alleging a breach of procedural fairness arising from the Tribunal's decision to list a hearing to determine the jurisdiction question. Forgie DP refused the request for a stay finding there was no genuine matter to be litigated in the High Court and proceeding would not limit that Court, and so proceeded to dismiss the review application on the basis that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction as Ms Luck did not first seek internal review as required by the FOI Act.