Clarkson v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission

The applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Clarkson, brought proceedings against the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) and the Commonwealth of Australia concerning the Commission's handling of a complaint made by Mr. Clarkson under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth). The dispute centred on the Commission's decision to dismiss Mr. Clarkson's complaint without holding a formal hearing, which the applicants alleged was unfair and unlawful. The matter came before the High Court of Australia on appeal from the Full Federal Court.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether HREOC, in dismissing Mr. Clarkson's complaint, had acted in a manner that was procedurally unfair, thereby breaching the implied duty of fairness owed by a statutory body exercising its powers. Specifically, the court considered whether the Commission was obliged to afford Mr. Clarkson an opportunity to be heard before making a decision to dismiss his complaint, particularly given the nature of the complaint and the potential impact of its dismissal.

In their joint judgment, Hayne and Crennan JJ held that HREOC was not obliged to afford Mr. Clarkson an opportunity to be heard before dismissing his complaint. Their Honours reasoned that the Commission's power to dismiss a complaint under section 11(1)(b) of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) was a preliminary or investigative function, not a determination of rights or liabilities. They applied the principle that a duty to afford procedural fairness does not arise in relation to every administrative decision, but rather depends on the nature of the power being exercised and the impact of the decision. In this instance, the dismissal of the complaint did not finally determine the rights of the parties but rather concluded the Commission's investigation. The High Court therefore found that the Commission had not breached any implied duty of procedural fairness.