De Domenico v Marshall

Case [2001] ACTSC 52

TONY DE DOMENICO v MARGOT MARSHALL [2001] ACTSC 52 (24 May 2001)

CATCHWORDS

COURTS AND JUDICIAL SYSTEM – appeals from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – whether appeal limited to questions of law as provided by s 46 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1989 – whether more expansive appellate jurisdiction provided by s 20 of the Supreme Court Act 1933 – whether s 48A of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 confers appellate jurisdiction on the Supreme Court or prevents the appellate jurisdiction otherwise conferred by s 20 of the Supreme Court Act from being reduced or limited by laws of the Territory.
APPEAL – decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal (ACT) - allegations of sexual harassment –findings of fact adequate –failure to make adequate findings and give sufficient reasons for decision – whether appellant given sufficient warning of Tribunal’s intention to depart from the approach taken by the Discrimination Commissioner in the decision appealed from – whether irrelevant considerations taken into account – whether failure to take relevant considerations into account – whether decision based upon errors of law and fact. 

Discrimination Act 1991, s 59(1)
Legislative Assembly (Member’s Staff) Act 1989
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1989 s 46(1), 46(3), 46(5)
Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 20
Magistrates Court Act 1930, s 207
Tenancy Tribunal Act1994, s 58, s 46
Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act1988 (Cth), s 48A
ACT Supreme Court (Transfer) Act 1992 (Cth)

Tony de Domenico v Margot Marshall [1999] ACTSC 1
De Domenico v Marshall [1999] FCA 1305
Heatley v Tasmanian Racing and Gaming Commission (1977) 14 ALR 519
Kelly v Apps [2000] FCA 687) p
FAI Properties Pty Ltd v Nationwide Travel Canberra Pty Ltd [2000] ACTSC 82 (6 October 2000)
Anthony Hordern & Sons Ltd v The Amalgamated Clothing and Allied Trades Union of Australia (1932) 47 CLR 1
Leon Fink Holdings Pty Ltd v Australian Film Commission (1979) 24 ALR 513
Pettitt v Dunkley [1971] 1 NSWLR 376
ibid,Donges v Ratcliffe [1975] 1 NSWLR 501
Gamser v Nominal Defendant (1977) 136 CLR 145
Sharman v Evans (1977) 138 CLR 563
Dessent v Commonwealth (1977) 51 ALJR 482
Kelly v Fay [1982] 1 NSWLR 232
Beale v Government Insurance Office of NSW (1997) 48 NSWLR 430
Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd v Wraith (1983) 48 ALR 500
Our Town FM Pty Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1987) 16 FCR 465
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472
State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd (1999) 160 ALR 588
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336

Statutory Interpretation in Australia, 4th ed Butterworths, Sydney 1996

On Appeal from the ACT Administrative Appeals Tribunal

No. SCA 19 of 2000

Judge:               Crispin J
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date:                 24 May 2001

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE  )
  )              No. SCA 19 of 2000
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY                  )

BETWEEN:TONY DE DOMENICO

Appellant

AND:MARGOT MARSHALL

Respondent

ORDER

Judge:  Crispin J
Date:…

Continue reading De Domenico v Marshall

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
De Domenico v Marshall [2001] ACTSC 52
Case
[2001] ACTSC 52
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In De Domenico v Marshall, the respondent, an employee of the Australian Capital Territory, appealed a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal regarding allegations of sexual harassment. The Tribunal found that the respondent had sexually harassed the appellant and ordered the respondent to apologise to the appellant, to pay the appellant $500, and to undergo training. The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory was asked to review the decision of the Tribunal. The primary issue before the Court was whether the appeal was limited to questions of law as provided by section 46 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1989, or whether a more expansive appellate jurisdiction was provided by section 20 of the Supreme Court Act 1933. The Court also considered whether section 48A of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 conferred appellate jurisdiction on the Supreme Court or prevented the appellate jurisdiction otherwise conferred by section 20 of the Supreme Court Act from being reduced or limited by laws of the Territory.

The Court found that the appeal was not limited to questions of law as provided by section 46 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1989. Rather, the Court held that a more expansive appellate jurisdiction was provided by section 20 of the Supreme Court Act 1933. The Court also found that section 48A of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 did not confer appellate jurisdiction on the Supreme Court or prevent the appellate jurisdiction otherwise conferred by section 20 of the Supreme Court Act from being reduced or limited by laws of the Territory. The Court held that the Tribunal had failed to make adequate findings and give sufficient reasons for its decision, and that the appellant had not been given sufficient warning of the Tribunal’s intention to depart from the approach taken by the Discrimination Commissioner in the decision appealed from. The Court also found that the Tribunal had taken irrelevant considerations into account and failed to take relevant considerations into account, and that the decision was based upon errors of law and fact.

The Court upheld the appeal, set aside the decision of the Tribunal, and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for re-hearing. The Court also ordered that the appellant be paid $5,000 in costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The appeal be upheld.

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.