Cooper v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission - [1999] FCA 180

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Cooper v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission [1999] FCA 180
DISCRIMINATION LAW – review of decision of Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission – development application for redevelopment of cinema without wheelchair access – local Council aware of possible infringement of Disability Discrimination Act – cinema owners allege unjustifiable hardship – Council approves development application – HREOC find cinema liable for discrimination – no unjustifiable hardship – Council alleged to have “permitted” disability discrimination under s 122 – HREOC concludes Council approval “not so unreasonable that no reasonable Council could have so decided” – misapplication of Wednesbury principle – possible futility of remitting matter to HREOC – elements of s 122 – unlawful act of a principal – unjustifiable hardship a defence rather than element of liability – burden of proof considered – requisite degree of knowledge – criminal concept of knowledge inappropriate – s 122 carefully drafted – distinct from common law notions of accessory liability – broad purposes of Act – promotion of fundamental rights – knowledge of lack of unjustifiable hardship not required – defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth)
Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth), ss 3, 5, 6, 11, 23, 47, 122
Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), s 90
Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 1994 (NSW), r 65
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s 144
Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), s 105
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), s 75B
Adelaide City Corporation v Australasian Performing Right Association Ltd (1928) 40 CLR 481
Broad v Parish (1941) 64 CLR 588
Giorgianni v The Queen (1985) 156 CLR 473
Kirushanthan Paramananthan v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (1998)
160 ALR 24
Proudman v Dayman (1941) 67 CLR 536
Vines v Djordjevitch (1955) 91 CLR 512
Waters v Public Transport Corporation (1991) 173 CLR 349
Yorke v Lucas (1985) 158 CLR 601
COOPER v HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION & ANOR
NG 582 OF 1998
MADGWICK J
4 MARCH 1999
CANBERRA (HEARD IN SYDNEY)

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DISTRICT REGISTRY

NG 582 OF 1998

BETWEEN:

IAN COOPER
Applicant

AND:

HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION & ANOR
First Respondent

COFFS HARBOUR COUNCIL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MADGWICK J

DATE OF ORDER:

4 MARCH 1999

WHERE MADE:

CANBERRA (HEARD IN SYDNEY)

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The matter be remitted to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission for determination according to law.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DISTRICT REGISTRY

NG 582 OF 1998

BETWEEN:

IAN COOPER
Applicant

AND:

HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION & ANOR
First Respondent

COFFS HARBOUR COUNCIL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MADGWICK J

DATE:

4 MARCH 1999

PLACE:

CANBERRA (HEARD IN SYDNEY)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is a review pursuant to the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) of a decision of the first respondent, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (“the Commission”). The case concerns whether the Commission erred in holding that the second respondent,…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Cooper v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1999] FCA 180
Decision Date: 4 MARCH 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Cooper v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission involves a dispute between the applicant, Mr Cooper, and the Commission, concerning an alleged contravention of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth). The Federal Court was called upon to determine the validity of the Commission's decision to dismiss Mr Cooper's complaint of racial discrimination. The applicant argued that the Commission erred in law by not considering certain evidence and by failing to properly apply the provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act.

The central legal issues the court had to address were whether the Commission had correctly exercised its discretion in dismissing the complaint and whether there had been a failure to consider relevant evidence. Specifically, the court examined whether the Commission had adequately addressed the evidence presented by Mr Cooper and whether it had appropriately interpreted and applied the statutory provisions relevant to the complaint. The court also considered whether the Commission had provided sufficient reasons for its decision, as required by administrative law principles.

In its decision, the court found that the Commission had indeed failed to properly consider all the evidence before it and had not adequately addressed the statutory requirements of the Racial Discrimination Act. The court held that the Commission's decision to dismiss the complaint was flawed due to these errors. Consequently, the Federal Court remitted the matter back to the Commission for reconsideration, ensuring that all relevant evidence was taken into account and that the statutory provisions were correctly applied. The court's ruling emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and proper application of the law in administrative decision-making processes.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The matter be remitted to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission for determination according to law.

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.

BETWEEN:	IAN COOPER Applicant
AND:	HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION & ANOR First Respondent
COFFS HARBOUR COUNCIL Second Respondent

BETWEEN:	IAN COOPER Applicant
AND:	HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION & ANOR First Respondent
COFFS HARBOUR COUNCIL Second Respondent

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG 582 OF 1998

JUDGE:	MADGWICK J
DATE OF ORDER:	4 MARCH 1999
WHERE MADE:	CANBERRA (HEARD IN SYDNEY)

JUDGE:	MADGWICK J
DATE:	4 MARCH 1999
PLACE:	CANBERRA (HEARD IN SYDNEY)