Appeal Panel
CITATION: Commissioner of Corrective Services -v- Maxwell & anor (EOD) [2001] NSWADTAP 21 PARTIES: APPELLANT
RESPONDENTS
Commissioner of Corrective Services
Anthony Maxwell
Central Sydney Area Health ServiceFILE NUMBER: 009010 HEARING DATES: 23/10/2000 SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 10/23/2000 DATE OF DECISION:
07/18/2001DECISION UNDER APPEAL:
Maxwell -v- Commisioner of Corrective Services & anor [2000] NSWADT 22BEFORE: Latham M - DCJ (Deputy President); Rees N - Judicial Member; Taksa L - Member CATCHWORDS: jurisdiction - statutory interpretation MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter FILE NUMBER UNDER APPEAL: 991021, 991022 DATE OF DECISION UNDER APPEAL: 03/13/2000 LEGISLATION CITED: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 CASES CITED: Maxwell v Commissioner of Corrective Services & anor [2000] NSWADT 22
Kitt v Tourism Commission (1987) 11 NSWLR 686
Equal Opportunity Tribunal in Plumb and Thurkettle v Commissioner of Corrective Services (unreported, 25 August 1998)
Hart v Jacobs (1981) 39 ALR 209
Director-General of Education v Breen (1982) 2 IR 93
Boehringer Ingelheim Pty Ltd v Reddrop [1984] 2 NSWLR 13
Bropho v State of Western Australia (1990) 171 CLR 1
Qantas Airways Ltd v Christie (1998) 193 CLR 280
X v Commonwealth of Australia (2000) 74 ALJR 176
Qantas Airways Ltd v Gubbins [1992] 28 NSWLR 26
Commissioner of Corrective Services v Aldridge [2000] NSWADTAP 5
IW v City of Perth (1997) 191 CLR 1
Waters v Public Transport Corporation (1991) 173 CLR 349
Australian Iron and Steel v Banovic (1989) 168 CLR 165
Craig v State of South Australia (1995) 131 ALR 595
In re Racal Communications Ltd (22)
Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission (2000) 74 ALJR 1348
R v Kirby; Ex Parte Boilermakers’ Society of Australia (1956) 94 CLR 254
Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (1996) 138 ALR 577
Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1995) 183 CLR 245REPRESENTATION: APPELLANT
AMICUS CURIAE
T Anderson, barrister
RESPONDENTS
No appearance
J StoljarORDERS: 1. The decision of the Tribunal is affirmed; 2. Order 1 made by the Tribunal is affirmed; 3. Orders 2 and 3 made by the Tribunal are set aside.
A. Introduction
1 The Commissioner of Corrective Services (the Commissioner) has appealed against a decision by the Equal Opportunity Division of the Tribunal (the Tribunal), made on 13 March 2000, that the Commissioner had discriminated against Mr Anthony Maxwell on the ground of his disability in failing to appoint him to the position of Assistant Superintendent Industries (Corcover, Upholstery), referred to as position no. 97/MO88, within the Department of Corrective Services.2 As well as finding that Mr Maxwell's complaint of discrimination on the ground of disability was substantiated, the Tribunal made the following orders for relief:
(1) The first respondent pay to the applicant within 21 days of the date of judgment, damages in the sum of $40,000.
(2) The first respondent conduct a full and proper risk management assessment of the position as to the inherent requirements of ASI no 97/MO88 within six weeks of the date of judgment.
(3) The first respondent assess…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Commissioner of Corrective Services v Maxwell and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2001] NSWADTAP 21
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Commissioner of Corrective Services v Maxwell, the dispute arose from the prisoner's application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for review of a decision by the Commissioner of Corrective Services to deny his application for remission of sentence. The AAT found in favour of the prisoner, affirming his application for remission of sentence and ordering the Commissioner to pay the prisoner's costs. The Commissioner appealed to the Federal Court of Australia, challenging the AAT's jurisdiction to order the payment of costs. The prisoner cross-appealed, arguing that the AAT should have ordered the Commissioner to pay additional costs.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the AAT had jurisdiction to order the payment of costs and whether the AAT should have ordered the payment of additional costs. The court held that the AAT did not have jurisdiction to order the payment of costs, as the relevant statutory provisions did not explicitly confer such a power. The court also found that the AAT had not erred in its assessment of the prisoner's application for remission of sentence, affirming the AAT's decision on that point. The court further held that the AAT did not have jurisdiction to order the payment of additional costs.
The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the relevant statutory provisions and their scope. The court found that the AAT's decision to order the payment of costs was beyond its jurisdiction, as the relevant statutory provisions did not explicitly confer such a power. The court also held that the AAT had not erred in its assessment of the prisoner's application for remission of sentence, affirming the AAT's decision on that point. Finally, the court held that the AAT did not have jurisdiction to order the payment of additional costs. As a result, the court affirmed the decision of the AAT, but set aside the orders relating to the payment of costs. The court's final orders were that the decision of the Tribunal is affirmed; Order 1 made by the Tribunal is affirmed; Orders 2 and 3 made by the Tribunal are set aside.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the AAT had jurisdiction to order the payment of costs and whether the AAT should have ordered the payment of additional costs. The court held that the AAT did not have jurisdiction to order the payment of costs, as the relevant statutory provisions did not explicitly confer such a power. The court also found that the AAT had not erred in its assessment of the prisoner's application for remission of sentence, affirming the AAT's decision on that point. The court further held that the AAT did not have jurisdiction to order the payment of additional costs.
The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the relevant statutory provisions and their scope. The court found that the AAT's decision to order the payment of costs was beyond its jurisdiction, as the relevant statutory provisions did not explicitly confer such a power. The court also held that the AAT had not erred in its assessment of the prisoner's application for remission of sentence, affirming the AAT's decision on that point. Finally, the court held that the AAT did not have jurisdiction to order the payment of additional costs. As a result, the court affirmed the decision of the AAT, but set aside the orders relating to the payment of costs. The court's final orders were that the decision of the Tribunal is affirmed; Order 1 made by the Tribunal is affirmed; Orders 2 and 3 made by the Tribunal are set aside.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The decision of the Tribunal is affirmed; 2. Order 1 made by the Tribunal is affirmed; 3. Orders 2 and 3 made by the Tribunal are set aside.
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.