COCKS MACNISH & ANOR -v- BIUNDO [2004] WASCA 194
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2004] WASCA 194 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1137/2003 | 8 JUNE 2004 | |
| Coram: | JENKINS J | 26/08/04 | |
| 27 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | COCKS MACNISH TENNA PTY LTD SUZANNE ELLEN BIUNDO |
Catchwords: | Appeal Equal opportunity Failure of Tribunal to dismiss application on grounds that it was misconceived or lacking in substance Discrimination on grounds of gender and pregnancy |
Legislation: | Commonwealth Act, s 5, s 7, s 8 Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA), s 5, s 10(1), s 10(1)(a)(i), s 10(1)(a)(ii), s 10(1)(a)(iii), s 11(2)(c), s 11(2)(d), s 58, s 109, s 125(1), s 134(1) Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA), s 83(1) Minimum Conditions of Employment Act 1993, s 33(1) |
Case References: | Assal v Department of Health Housing and Community Services (1992) EOC 92-409 Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 Department of Health v Arumugam [1988] VR 319 Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62 Ebber v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1995) 129 ALR 455 Gibbs v Australian Wool Corporation (1990) EOC 92-327 Hope v The Council of the City of Bathurst (1980) 144 CLR 1 Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission v Mt Isa Mines Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 301 Khanna v Ministry of Defence [1981] ICR 653 Langley v Niland [1981] 2 NSWLR 104 Legal Services Commissioner v Ball [2001] NSWADT 86 Nagasinghe v Worthington (1994) 53 FCR 175 Rispoli v Merck Sharpe & Dohme (Australia) Pty Ltd (2003) EOC 93-304 State Electricity Commission of Victoria v Rabel [1998] 1 VR 102 Tapuvae v Vetob Pty Ltd (2002) EOC 93-241 Thomson v Orica Australia Pty Ltd (2002) EOC 93-227 Williams v Spautz (1992) 174 CLR 509 Burton v The President of the Shire of Bairnsdale (1908) 7 CLR 76 DL (Representing the members of People Living with AIDS (WA) Inc) v Perth City Council (1992) EOC 92-422 Fort v Ralph M Lee Pty Ltd (1991) EOC 92-363 Hautlieu Pty Ltd t/as Russell Pathology v McIntosh [2000] WASCA 146 Hickie v Hunt and Hunt (1998) EOC 92-910 Margan v University of Technology Sydney [2003] NSWADT 133 Marshall v Marshall White & Co Pty Ltd (1990) EOC 92-304 Maylor (No 1) v Mid North Coast Area Health Service (2001) EOC 93-157 Milevski v Boral Buildings Services Pty Ltd (1994) EOC 92-645 Prakash v Bobb Borg Enterprises Pty Ltd [1999] NSWADT 73 Rochas v The University of Sydney [2004] NSWADT 14 Yarran & Anor v Westpac Banking Corporation (1992) EOC 92-440 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CIVIL
- First Appellant
TENNA PTY LTD
Second Appellant
AND
SUZANNE ELLEN BIUNDO
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction :
Continue reading Cocks Macnish & Anor v Biundo
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Cocks Macnish & Anor v Biundo [2004] WASCA 194
- Case
- [2004] WASCA 194
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Cocks Macnish and another sought to appeal a decision of the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal of New South Wales in which the Tribunal found that the respondents were not guilty of discrimination on the grounds of gender and pregnancy. The applicants were unsuccessful at first instance and sought to appeal the finding of the Tribunal. The applicants argued that the Tribunal failed to properly consider their submissions and misapplied the law in reaching its conclusion. The applicants submitted that the Tribunal should have dismissed the application as being misconceived or lacking in substance.
The applicants argued that the Tribunal failed to properly apply the relevant provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW). The applicants submitted that the Tribunal should have dismissed the application as being misconceived or lacking in substance. The applicants also argued that the Tribunal erred in failing to consider the relevant evidence and in reaching a conclusion contrary to the evidence. The applicants submitted that the Tribunal should have found that the respondents were guilty of discrimination on the grounds of gender and pregnancy.
The Court found that the Tribunal did not err in law or fail to properly consider the submissions of the applicants. The Court found that the Tribunal was correct to reject the applicants' submissions that the application was misconceived or lacking in substance. The Court found that the Tribunal properly applied the relevant provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) and properly considered the evidence before it. The Court found that the Tribunal was correct to reject the applicants' submissions that the respondents were guilty of discrimination on the grounds of gender and pregnancy. The Court dismissed the appeal.
The applicants argued that the Tribunal failed to properly apply the relevant provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW). The applicants submitted that the Tribunal should have dismissed the application as being misconceived or lacking in substance. The applicants also argued that the Tribunal erred in failing to consider the relevant evidence and in reaching a conclusion contrary to the evidence. The applicants submitted that the Tribunal should have found that the respondents were guilty of discrimination on the grounds of gender and pregnancy.
The Court found that the Tribunal did not err in law or fail to properly consider the submissions of the applicants. The Court found that the Tribunal was correct to reject the applicants' submissions that the application was misconceived or lacking in substance. The Court found that the Tribunal properly applied the relevant provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) and properly considered the evidence before it. The Court found that the Tribunal was correct to reject the applicants' submissions that the respondents were guilty of discrimination on the grounds of gender and pregnancy. The Court dismissed the appeal.
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.