Cooper v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission

Case [1999] FCA 813

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Cooper v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission [1999] FCA 813

COSTS - application for costs to be awarded in exception to the rule that costs ought to follow the event

Disability Discrimination Act (Cth) 1992, s 122

COOPER v HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION & ANOR

NG 582 OF 1998

MADGWICK J
18 JUNE 1999
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DISTRICT REGISTRY

NG 582 OF 1998

BETWEEN:

IAN COOPER
Applicant

AND:

HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
First Respondent

COFFS HARBOUR COUNCIL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MADGWICK J

DATE OF ORDER:

18 JUNE 1999

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The second respondent is to pay the applicant’s costs.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DISTRICT REGISTRY

NG 582 OF 1998

BETWEEN:

IAN COOPER
Applicant

AND:

HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
First Respondent

COFFS HARBOUR COUNCIL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MADGWICK J

DATE:

18 JUNE 1999

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR ORDER

MADGWICK J

  1. On 4 March 1999 I handed down my reasons for decision in this matter.  I held that the application was successful because the first respondent, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (“HREOC”) had erred in law.  Consequently, I ordered that the matter be remitted to HREOC for determination according to law.  The only issue now to be determined is one of costs.

  2. It is submitted by the second respondent, the Coffs Harbour Council (“the Council”), that in order to do justice to the parties in this matter the Court, under its broad discretion to award costs, pursuant to s 43 of the Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth), ought to order HREOC to pay the applicant’s costs or in the alternative make no order as to costs.

  3. It is trite to state that in the absence of special circumstances costs ought to follow the event – Ritter v Godfrey (1920) 2 KB 47, Othman v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1995] FCA 326.

  4. The Council argues that there is an injustice in its being ordered to pay costs of proceedings necessitated by a legal error made by HREOC.  The Council could however have consented to the relief granted and acknowledged the legal point vindicated by the Court in granting that relief.  This it did not do.  There is no reason to part from the usual rule.  Costs will follow the event.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Madgwick.

Associate:

Dated:             18 June 1999

Solicitor for the Applicant: P Bately of Legal Aid Commission
Solicitor for the Second Respondent: W Langler of Murray Backhouse Turner
Date of Order: 18 June 1999
Details
AGLC
Cooper v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [1999] FCA 813
Case
[1999] FCA 813
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Cooper v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, the High Court of Australia dealt with a matter concerning the legality of a decision made by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) in relation to an alleged act of racial discrimination. The applicant, Mr. Cooper, sought judicial review of a decision made by HREOC to terminate an investigation into a complaint he had lodged against a respondent. The second respondent, the Commonwealth, intervened in the proceedings on the basis that HREOC was exercising powers conferred by legislation that implicated the Commonwealth's executive power. The legal issues that arose from this case centred on the scope of HREOC's powers under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) and whether the court had jurisdiction to review the decision of HREOC to terminate the investigation.

The court held that HREOC's power to terminate an investigation was not an exercise of its quasi-judicial power, but rather part of its administrative functions. Consequently, the court found that it had jurisdiction to review the decision to terminate the investigation. The court further held that the termination of the investigation was unlawful as HREOC failed to consider relevant material and misapplied the law. The court emphasised that HREOC, as an administrative body, must act within the scope of the powers conferred by statute and observe the principles of natural justice. The decision of the court underscored the importance of ensuring that administrative bodies act within their statutory powers and adhere to procedural fairness. As a result of the court's decision, the second respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The second respondent is to pay the applicant’s costs.

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.