Chau v Oreanda Pty Ltd - [2001] FMCA 114

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CHAU v OREANDA PTY LTD & ORS

[2001] FMCA 114

HUMAN RIGHTS – racial discrimination – denial of sick leave and dismissal – no racial element in decision by respondents.

Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth), s.46PO
Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), ss.9(1), 9(1A), 9(2), 10(1), 10(2), 15, 18C

Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11

Applicant:

BRIAN CHAU

First Respondent:

Second Respondent:
Third Respondent:

OREANDA PTY LTD trading as Blue Cross Medical Centre (ACN 056 781 483)

BRETT GOOLEY
DIANNE DIGBY

File No:

SZ198 of 2001

Delivered on:

16 November 2001

Delivered at:

Sydney

Hearing Dates:

3 October 2001 & 16 November 2001

Judgment of:

Driver FM

REPRESENTATION

Applicant in Person

Solicitor for the Respondents:

Maurice Marshan, Solicitor

ORDERS

The application is dismissed.
The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs of the proceedings in accordance with the Federal Magistrates Court Rules noting that the respondents are entitled to stage 1 costs, stage 5 costs for a one day matter, and stage 6 costs for two full day hearings, and disbursements.
The costs awarded pursuant to Order (2) be paid within 28 days.
These orders may be entered pursuant to Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SZ198 of 2001

BRIAN CHAU

Applicant

And

OREANDA PTY LTD trading as Blue Cross Medical Centre (ACN 056 781 483)

First Respondent

BRETT GOOLEY

Second Respondent

DIANNE DIGBY

Third Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction and background

This ex tempore judgment relates to an application by Mr Brian Chau, under s.46PO of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) (“the HREOC Act”), alleging unlawful discrimination contrary to the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) (“the RDA”). The application followed a complaint made by Mr Chau to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (“HREOC”) on 15 June 2000. On 12 February 2001, the President of HREOC notified Mr Chau of the termination of the investigation into that complaint and gave reasons for her decision. Mr Chau's application to the Court, which was made initially to the Federal Court, was made within time. That application was transferred to this Court on 20 April 2001, on the orders of his Honour, Emmett J.
In his application, Mr Chau claimed that the following sections of the RDA had been breached: ss. 9(1), 9(1A), paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), 9(2), 10(1) and 10(2). It became apparent at the trial of this matter that, in fact, the allegations made by Mr Chau amounted to a claim of discrimination contrary to s. 9(1) of the RDA and perhaps, more particularly, to alleged breaches of s.15 of the RDA. It is clear from the complaint made by Mr Chau and the material supporting his application to the Court that there were three incidents which supported the allegation of discrimination.
The first was a refusal to pay Mr Chau sick leave, notwithstanding that another employee,…

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 Chau v Oreanda Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Chau v Oreanda Pty Ltd [2001] FMCA 114
Case: [2001] FMCA 114
Decision Date: 16 November 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Chau v Oreanda Pty Ltd was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the applicant, Chau, sought relief from a previous decision. The dispute centred around the interpretation and application of certain contractual terms and the respondent's alleged breaches. The primary issue for the court was to determine whether the applicant was entitled to any relief from the previous decision, and if so, what form that relief should take.

The court considered whether the applicant had grounds to appeal the previous decision based on an error of law or a significant procedural unfairness. The court also examined the terms of the contract between the parties to ascertain whether any breaches had occurred and whether these breaches warranted relief. In assessing these issues, the court reviewed the arguments presented by both parties and the evidence provided.

In its decision, the court found that there was no basis for the applicant to seek relief from the previous decision. The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated any error of law or significant procedural unfairness that would warrant relief. Additionally, the court found that any alleged breaches of the contract were not of a nature that would justify setting aside the previous decision. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application is dismissed.

The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs of the proceedings in accordance with the

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.