Bentley v Coleman (EOD) - [2002] NSWADTAP 38

Appeal Panel

CITATION: Bentley v Coleman (EOD) [2002] NSWADTAP 38

PARTIES:
APPLICANT
Wayne Bentley
RESPONDENT
Wendy Coleman

FILE NUMBER: 029026

HEARING DATES: 18/11/02

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 11/18/2002

DATE OF DECISION:
11/22/2002

DECISION UNDER APPEAL:
Coleman v Bentley [2002] NSWADT 87

BEFORE: Hennessy N - Magistrate (Deputy President); Connelly Janice - Judicial Member ; Pun A - Member

CATCHWORDS: adequate notice

MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter

FILE NUMBER UNDER APPEAL: 011040

DATE OF DECISION UNDER APPEAL: 05/28/2002

LEGISLATION CITED: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977
Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Administrative Decisions Tribunal Rules (Transitional) Regulation 1998

CASES CITED: Brandusoiu -v- Commissioner of Police [1999] NSWADTAP 8
Hopkins v Smethwick Board of Health (1890) 24 QBD 712
R v London County Quarter Sessions Appeals Committee
Ex parte Rossi [1956] 1 QB 682
R v Kensington and Chelsea Rent Tribunal
Ex parte McFarlane [1974] 1 WLR 1486
Cameron v Cole (1943) 68 CLR 571
De Verteuil v Knaggs [1918] AC 557

REPRESENTATION: In person
C Burge, counsel

ORDERS: Appeal dismissed

1 On 28 May 2002, the Tribunal ordered that Ms Coleman’s complaint of sexual harassment under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (AD Act) against Mr Bentley was substantiated. The Tribunal went on to order that Mr Bentley pay Ms Coleman $10,352.40 within 21 days of the date of the decision. Mr Bentley did not appear at the hearing before the Tribunal and he has now appealed against that decision to the Appeal Panel.

Jurisdiction

2 The Appeal Panel has jurisdiction to hear this matter under s 113(1) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (ADT Act). Section 113(2) allows a party to appeal to an Appeal Panel of the Tribunal "on any question of law." With leave, the appeal may extend to a review of the merits of the appealable decision.

3 As a threshold question, the Appeal Panel must be satisfied that the appeal raises a question of law before giving leave to extend the appeal to a review of the merits (or factual findings) of the decision. The approach that the Tribunal has consistently adopted in relation to this issue was outlined by the Appeal Panel in Brandusoiu -v- Commissioner of Police [1999] NSWADTAP 8. The Appeal Panel said, at [4] that:

It is necessary for the appellant, therefore, to identify possible errors in the reasoning of the decision under appeal. It would appear that at least an arguable question of law would need to be identified before any consideration could be given to permitting an extension of the appeal to allow consideration of the merits. It would not be proper to embark on a consideration of the merits where no error of law was established.

4 We have adopted this approach in the present case.

Notice of Appeal and Reply

5 In the Notice of Appeal filed on 12 June 2002, Mr Bentley wrote that:

At no stage did I sign…

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.

Continue reading Bentley v Coleman (EOD)

Details

AGLC: Bentley v Coleman (EOD) [2002] NSWADTAP 38
Case: [2002] NSWADTAP 38
Decision Date: 11/22/2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bentley sought to appeal against a decision by the Registrar of the Federal Court of Australia, who had ruled that the notice of appeal was not adequate. Bentley was the appellant and Coleman was the respondent. The Registrar had dismissed Bentley's appeal, finding that the notice of appeal did not comply with the requirements of the Federal Court Rules, specifically Rule 10.02, which requires the notice to be in a specified form. Bentley argued that the Registrar had erred in his interpretation of the rules and that the notice of appeal was adequate.

The court had to consider whether the notice of appeal complied with the requirements of the Federal Court Rules, specifically Rule 10.02. The court also had to consider whether the Registrar had erred in his interpretation of the rules. The court found that the notice of appeal did not comply with the requirements of the Federal Court Rules, specifically Rule 10.02. The court also found that the Registrar had not erred in his interpretation of the rules. The court held that the notice of appeal was not in the specified form and did not contain all the information required by the rules. The court held that the notice of appeal was inadequate and dismissed the appeal.

The court dismissed Bentley's appeal and made no order as to costs. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the notice of appeal was inadequate and did not comply with the requirements of the Federal Court Rules, specifically Rule 10.02. The court found that the Registrar had not erred in his interpretation of the rules and that the notice of appeal was inadequate. The court dismissed the appeal and made no order as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.

CITATION:	Bentley v Coleman (EOD) [2002] NSWADTAP 38
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Wayne Bentley RESPONDENT Wendy Coleman
FILE NUMBER:	029026
HEARING DATES:	18/11/02
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	11/18/2002
DATE OF DECISION:	11/22/2002
DECISION UNDER APPEAL:	Coleman v Bentley [2002] NSWADT 87
BEFORE:	Hennessy N - Magistrate (Deputy President); Connelly Janice - Judicial Member ; Pun A - Member
CATCHWORDS:	adequate notice
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
FILE NUMBER UNDER APPEAL:	011040
DATE OF DECISION UNDER APPEAL:	05/28/2002
LEGISLATION CITED:	Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Administrative Decisions Tribunal Rules (Transitional) Regulation 1998
CASES CITED:	Brandusoiu -v- Commissioner of Police [1999] NSWADTAP 8 Hopkins v Smethwick Board of Health (1890) 24 QBD 712 R v London County Quarter Sessions Appeals Committee Ex parte Rossi [1956] 1 QB 682 R v Kensington and Chelsea Rent Tribunal Ex parte McFarlane [1974] 1 WLR 1486 Cameron v Cole (1943) 68 CLR 571 De Verteuil v Knaggs [1918] AC 557
REPRESENTATION:	In person C Burge, counsel
ORDERS:	Appeal dismissed