Buderim Ginger Ltd v Booth

[2002] QCA 177

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Buderim Ginger Ltd v Booth [2002] QCA 177

PARTIES:

BUDERIM GINGER LTD ACN 010 978 800
(Applicant/Respondent)
v
SUSAN BOOTH, ACTING ANTI-DISCRIMINATION COMMISSIONER, QUEENSLAND
(Respondent/Appellant)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 9435 of 2001
SC No 3077 of 2001

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

24 May 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 May 2002

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, McPherson JA and Atkinson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made.

ORDER:

That the appeal be allowed1.      

That the orders made on 27 September 2001 by the learned primary Judge be set aside2.      

3.     That the respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the application and the appeal to be assessed

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW LEGISLATION – COMMONWEALTH, QUEENSLAND AND AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY – GROUNDS FOR REVIEW OF DECISION – IMPROPER EXERCISE OF POWER – ERROR OF LAW – where employee made complaint of discrimination on the ground of impairment – where Anti-Discrimination Commissioner exercised discretion to accept complaint outside one year limit – whether there was evidence from which the Commissioner could be reasonably satisfied there was good cause to accept complaint

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – PARTICULAR TRIBUNALS OR BODIES – ANTI-DISCRIMINATION AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TRIBUNALS

DISCRIMINATION LAW – STATE PROVISIONS – QUEENSLAND – whether “good cause” in s138(2) Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 requires explanation for delay in bringing complaint

Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), s 2, s 4, s 6(2), s 7(1)(h), s 11, s 15(1)(a), s 15(1)(f), s 136(b), s 138, s 139
Judicial Review Act 1991(Qld), s 20(2)(h), s 24

Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541, referred to
Comcare v A’Hearn (1993) 45 FCR 441, applied
Cooper v Hopgood & Ganim [1999] 2 Qd R 113, referred to
Dempsey v Dorber [1990] 1 Qd R 418, applied
Department of Transport v Chris Smaller (Transport) Ltd [1989] 1 AC 1197, considered
Gleeson v Brick [1969] Qd R 361, referred to
McAuliffe v Puplic (1996) EOC 92-800, referred to
Hoffman v The Queensland Local Government Superannuation Board [1994] 1 Qd R 369, referred to
Witten v Lombard Australia Ltd (1963) 88 WN (Pt 1) NSW, applied

COUNSEL:

P A Keane QC, with D Rangiah, for the appellant

D Jackson QC, with S Keim, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Blake Dawson Waldron for the respondent

1. de JERSEY CJ:  I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Atkinson J, in which her Honour comprehensively sets out the circumstances giving rise to the appeal.

1. The narrow question for the learned primary Judge was whether there was, before the Commissioner, any evidence – even a scintilla – from which the Commissioner could reasonably have been satisfied that the complainant had shown “good cause” for acceptance of the complaint after the prescribed 12 month period (s 24 Judicial Review Act 1991). In her reasons, Atkinson J has referred…