Background
Andreas Karnauchow, an inmate at Junee Correctional Centre, pursued NCAT proceedings concerning alleged discrimination, and possibly victimisation, while in custody. After his original proceedings were dismissed, he appealed to NCAT’s Appeal Panel and made several procedural applications.
In July 2025, Karnauchow sought a temporary stay of the NCAT appeal proceedings until he could conduct online legal research and obtain access to a laptop and word-processing software. NCAT refused the application on 21 August 2025, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to stay an earlier Appeal Panel decision and that, even if jurisdiction existed, a stay should be refused because it would revisit previously decided issues and delay the appeal. Karnauchow sought judicial review in the Supreme Court, but meanwhile fully participated in the NCAT appeal, which was heard and remained reserved.
The Court’s Holding
Chen J struck out the summons. It failed to state specific, intelligible grounds of review as required by the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules and instead consisted of lengthy, disorganised assertions. Although Karnauchow was self-represented, the Court was not required to reconstruct an arguable case from an inadequately framed summons.
The challenge was also futile and premature because the Appeal Panel had already heard the appeal after receiving Karnauchow’s extensive written and oral submissions. Even if the stay refusal were affected by reviewable error, the Supreme Court could only quash that decision and remit the application; it could not itself determine the stay request. Once NCAT issues its final decision, Karnauchow may pursue any available appeal or judicial-review rights, including a contention that the earlier refusal affected the result. The Court ordered him to pay the defendant’s costs.
Key Takeaways
- A judicial-review summons must identify its grounds specifically and intelligibly, even when filed by a self-represented litigant.
- A challenge to an interlocutory refusal may be futile or premature when the underlying proceeding has already been heard and awaits decision.
- The strike-out was without prejudice to Karnauchow raising the stay issue in a permissible challenge to NCAT’s eventual final decision.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the discretionary and practical limits of judicial review. Courts may decline relief where intervening events mean that quashing and remittal would produce no useful result.
It also cautions litigants against separately challenging procedural rulings before the tribunal has delivered its final decision, particularly where those rulings may later be addressed through an appeal from, or judicial review of, that decision.