Crvenkovic v La Trobe University

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Crvenkovic v La Trobe University [2009] FCA 374

DISCRIMINATION LAW – disability discrimination – complaint to Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission – whether applicant can allege acts of discrimination which post-dated the complaint to the Commission  

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) s 46PO

Bahonko v Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology [2006] FCA 1325 referred to
Bank of Western Australia Limited v Commissioner of Taxation (1994) 55 FCR 233 cited
Charles v Fuji Xerox Australia Pty Ltd (2000) 105 FCR 573 followed
Hurst v State of Queensland (2006) 151 FCR 562 referred to
Maghiar v State of Western Australia [2002] FCA 262 referred to
Stanislawa Bahonko v Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology [2006] FCA 1492 referred to

MARIANA CRVENKOVIC v LA TROBE UNIVERSITY

VID 559 of 2008

TRACEY J
24 APRIL 2009
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VID 559 of 2008

BETWEEN: MARIANA CRVENKOVIC
Applicant

AND: LA TROBE UNIVERSITY
Respondent

JUDGE:	TRACEY J
DATE OF ORDER:	24 APRIL 2009
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.On the final hearing of the proceeding, the Applicant not be at liberty to lead any evidence directed to establishing any act or omission on the part of the Respondent after 28 February 2008 which is alleged to constitute unlawful disability discrimination.

2.The Applicant pay the Respondent’s costs of the preliminary issue.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court’s website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VID 559 of 2008

BETWEEN: MARIANA CRVENKOVIC
Applicant

AND: LA TROBE UNIVERSITY
Respondent

JUDGE:	TRACEY J
DATE:	24 APRIL 2009
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 28 February 2008 Ms Mariana Crvenkovic lodged a complaint against La Trobe University (“the University”) with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (“the Commission”). She is severely to profoundly deaf. She alleged that the University had discriminated against her by not providing her with interpreting services and other assistance necessary for her to benefit from lectures and other tuition. The Commission sought to resolve the issues between the parties but was not able to do so. On 23 June 2008 it terminated Ms Crvenkovic’s complaint pursuant to s 46PH(1)(i) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) (“the Act”).

2. Under s 46PO(1) of the Act Ms Crvenkovic then became entitled to apply for redress in this Court for unlawful discrimination by the University. She commenced this proceeding on 18 July 2008. By s 46PO(3) of the Act it was necessary that her application be confined to allegations which had been earlier made to the Commission. Specifically the sub-section provides:

   “(3)     The unlawful discrimination alleged in the application:

   (a)must be the same as (or the same in substance as) the unlawful discrimination that was the subject of the terminated complaint; or

   (b)must arise out of the same (or substantially the same)…