De Alwis v Hair

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DE ALWIS v HAIR & ANOR [2002] FMCA 357

HUMAN RIGHTS – Application seeking injunctive relief pursuant to s.46PP of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986.

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act1986, s.46PP
Disability Discrimination Act1992, ss.4, 5, 6, 15, 16, 17, 17(1), 27, 28
Federal Magistrates Court Rules2001, Rule 13.01

Gardner v National Netball League Pty Ltd [2001] FMCA 50;
Rainsford v Group 4 Correctional Services [2002] FMCA 36;
McKellar v Australian Containers (1999) 165 ALR 415;
Lee v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2001) FCA 141;
McIntosh v Australian Postal Corporation (2001) FCA 1012

Applicant: VIJITHA DE ALWIS

Respondent: DARRELL HAIR & ANOR

File No: WZ 269 of 2002

Delivered on: 24 December 2002

Delivered at: Perth

Hearing Date: 24 December 2002

Judgment of: Bryant CFM

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Applicant appeared in person

Solicitors for the Applicant: Applicant appeared in person

ORDERS

1. THAT the Notice of Motion and the Application, both filed 19 December 2002 by the Applicant on an ex parte basis be dismissed.

2. THAT any further proceedings by the Applicant, save for an appeal against my decision, for injunctive relief under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act1986 be permanently stayed.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
PERTH

WZ 269 of 2002

VIJITHA DE ALWIS

Applicant

And

DARRELL HAIR & ANOR

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. This is an ex tempore decision.  The background to the matter is that it appears that Mr Muralitharan is likely to be included in the Sri Lankan cricket team which will be playing Australia as part of the tri-series and is expected to play for Sri Lanka against Australia on 9 January 2003. Mr Hair, in somewhat controversial circumstances has previously ‘no – balled’ Mr Muralithahran.  ‘No – balled’ being a term used for having a defective bowling action, which is otherwise referred to as ‘throwing’ in cricketing terms.   Mr Hair has also written a book in which he has made comments to the effect that, despite other people's views, he regards Mr Muralitharan's action as suspect. 

2. Against this background the Applicant has brought this Application and sought injunctions, the effect of which would be to restrain Mr Hair from umpiring and, in the view of the Applicant, thereby enabling Mr Muralitharan to play in the series. The Application is based upon the Disability Discrimination Act1992. The basis for seeking an injunction in this case on an ex parte basis is pursuant to section 46PP of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act1986. Section 46PP provides:

   (1) At any time after a complaint is lodged with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission the Federal Court or the Federal Magistrates Court may grant an interim injunction to maintain

   (a)the status quo as it existed immediately before the complaint was lodged, or

   (b)the rights of any complainant, respondent…