Britt v Harris - [2001] VSC 3

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
PRACTICE COURT	Not Restricted

In the Matter of S.148 of the Victorian Civil
and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998.

No. 6117 of 2000

INES BRITT	Plaintiff
v.
MAURICE HARRIS	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	BEACH, J.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	7 DECEMBER 2000
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	23 JANUARY 2001
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	BRITT v HARRIS
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSC 3

---

CATCHWORDS: Appeal from order of master dismissing application for leave to appeal from decision of Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal – No arguable error of law on part of Tribunal – Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr H Borenstein and Mr P. Mellas	Harwood Andrews Lawyers
For the Defendant	Mr. I. Fehring	Saines and Partners

HIS HONOUR:

This is an appeal from an order of a Master of the court made on 14 November 2000 whereby the Master dismissed the plaintiff's application for leave to appeal to a judge of the trial division of the court from an order of the Victorian Civil Administrative Appeals Tribunal made on 19 June 2000.

In late 1993 the plaintiff obtained employment with Child and Family Services Ballarat Inc. or CAFS as it is now known, and remained in the employ of that organisation until she tendered her resignation on 30 September 1999 effective from 11 October 1999.

Over the period of time relevant to this appeal the plaintiff's supervisor was the defendant Maurice Harris. At the time of the hearing before the Tribunal the plaintiff was aged 31 and the defendant was aged 62.

On 26 November 1998 the plaintiff lodged a complaint with the Equal Opportunity Commission alleging sexual harassment in the area of employment by the defendant and victimisation by CAFS and a number of co-employees named, Zibell, Delahunty and Boal.

On 9 September 1999 the Commission referred the complaints to the Tribunal.

By the time the plaintiff's complaints came on for hearing before the Tribunal the plaintiff had compromised all her complaints with the exception of those relating to the defendant.

The hearing commenced on 29^th May 2000. It extended over 8 days concluding on 7^th June.

The Tribunal found that the plaintiff's complaints of sexual harassment had been proven in part and on 19 June ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of $7500. The Tribunal further ordered each party "to bear it's own costs".

On 17 July 2000 the plaintiff filed an originating motion in the court seeking leave to appeal.

On 14^th November the Master dismissed the application.

In her draft Notice of Appeal, which is exhibit JGR1, to the affidavit of James Gordon Rutherford sworn 2^nd November 2000, the plaintiff sets out 14 questions arising from the appeal which she seeks to have the court answer.

However, at the outset of the hearing of the appeal, counsel for the plaintiff abandoned all but questions 1 and 8. Those questions read: -

1.Did the Tribunal err in law in…

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 Britt v Harris

Details

AGLC: Britt v Harris [2001] VSC 3
Case: [2001] VSC 3
Decision Date: 23 January 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Britt initiated proceedings against Harris in the Supreme Court of Victoria, appealing an order made by a master that dismissed an application for leave to appeal a decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). The original dispute between the parties centred on a property transaction, with Britt seeking to challenge VCAT's determination through the Supreme Court. The matter before the Supreme Court was to determine if the master's dismissal of Britt's application for leave to appeal was correct.

The court considered whether there was an arguable error of law in the master's decision to dismiss the application for leave to appeal. Britt contended that the master had erred in not recognising the existence of an arguable error of law in VCAT's decision. The court needed to assess if the master had properly exercised their discretion and whether there was a reasonable basis for the appeal. The central issue was whether the appeal to the Supreme Court was justified under the circumstances.

The Supreme Court found that the master had not erred in dismissing the application for leave to appeal. The court concluded that there was no arguable error of law in VCAT's decision, and thus, the application for leave to appeal was properly dismissed. The reasoning was that the grounds for appeal did not present a clear and substantial jurisdictional error warranting further review. The Supreme Court upheld the master's decision, affirming that the appeal was without merit.

The appeal was dismissed, and no further appeal lies to the Court of Appeal or the High Court. The decision reinforces the principle that appeals from VCAT decisions to the Supreme Court are not lightly granted and must be based on clear and substantial grounds.

Orders