Alamzeb v Director-General Education Qld - [2003] FMCA 274

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ALAMZEB v DIRECTOR-GENERAL EDUCATION QLD & ANOR

[2003] FMCA 274

HUMAN RIGHTS – Alleged racial discrimination – application to extend time to bring application to Court – issues of discrimination determined by Queensland Industrial Court – whether Applicant has reasonable excuse for delay – whether Applicant has arguable case – extension of time application refused – application dismissed.

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986, s.46PO(2)
Racial Discrimination Act 1975, s.6A(2)
Industrial Relations Act 1991 (Qld), s.74
Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), ss.153, 154
Inter Nation Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, Article 5

Alamzeb v Department of Education (2001) 167 Q919 364
Alamzeb v Education Queensland (No.2)(2002) 170 Q919 190
Phillips v Australian Girls Choir (2001) FMCA 109
Low v Australian Tax Office (2000) FMC 6
Lawnton v Lawson (2002) FMCA 68
Vel v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1997) 47 AALD 219
Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541
Blair v Curran (1939) 62 CLR 464
Ramsay v Pigram (1968) 118 CLR 271
Administration of Papua New Guinea v Daera Guva (1973) 130 CLR 353
Elekwachi v HREOC (1997) 149 ALR 557

Applicant:

MUHAMMAD ALAMZEB

Respondent:

DIRECTOR-GENERAL EDUCATION QUEENSLAND and JOHN BATTAMS

File No:

BZ302 of 2002

Delivered on:

4 July 2003

Delivered at:

Brisbane

Hearing date:

13 September 2002

Judgment of:

Baumann FM

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

In person

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr C J Murdoch

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Crown Law

ORDERS

The Application for extension of time is refused.
The Application is dismissed.
There are no Orders as to costs.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
BRISBANE

BZ302 of 2003

MUHAMMAD ALAMZEB

Applicant

And

DIRECTOR-GENERAL EDUCATION QUEENSLAND
& JOHN BATTAMS

Respondents

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

The Applicant in these proceedings is MUHAMMAD ALAMZEB (now known as ALAM Z RAO). On 21 June 2002 the Applicant made an application pursuant to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (the HREOC Act) alleging unlawful discrimination against him under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (RDA).
The Respondents were initially the Director-General, Education Queensland, and a Mr John Battams. Proceedings against Mr Battams have been discontinued.
The Applicant sought an extension of time under s.46PO(2) of the HREOC Act in which to bring the Application. The Application for extension of time is opposed by the Respondent.

History

The Applicant commenced employment as a full-time District Relieving Teacher on probation with Education Queensland at the Isis District State High School on 10 May 1999. After a period where the probationary term was extended and subsequent to meetings between the Applicant and a Ms Collins (the Principal), Ms Collins met the Applicant on 13 April 2000 and informed him that she had decided to recommend to the Department that his appointment as a teacher be terminated on the basis that his performance was unsatisfactory.
The report of the Principal and a Response by the Applicant was considered by a…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Alamzeb v Director-General Education Qld and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2003] FMCA 274
Decision Date: 4 July 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Alamzeb v Director-General Education Qld involved the appellant, Alamzeb, who sought an extension of time to appeal a decision regarding his employment with the Queensland Department of Education. The primary issue before the court was whether Alamzeb's application for an extension of time to appeal a decision made by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) should be granted. The appellant contended that exceptional circumstances warranted the extension of time. The respondent argued that the application should be dismissed due to the appellant's failure to establish exceptional circumstances as required by the relevant legislation.

The court examined the statutory framework governing the extension of time for appeals, focusing on the criteria for determining exceptional circumstances. It considered the appellant's submissions and the evidence provided to support his application. The court found that the appellant had not demonstrated that the delay in lodging the application was due to exceptional circumstances, as required by the legislation. The court held that the appellant's reasons for the delay were insufficient to meet the high threshold for granting an extension of time. Consequently, the court refused the application for an extension of time.

In light of the above, the court dismissed the application. The court determined that the appellant had not satisfied the criteria for an extension of time, and therefore, the application was without merit. The court also noted that there were no orders as to costs in this matter. The appellant's application for an extension of time was refused, and the appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Application for extension of time is refused.

The Application is dismissed.

There are no Orders as to costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.