Dirckze v Holmesglen Institute

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S CI 2015 03995

GRAHAM DIRCKZE	Plaintiff
v
HOLMESGLEN INSTITUTE	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Derham AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	25 November 2015 (written submission completed on 8 December 2015)
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	15 July 2016
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Dirckze v Holmesglen Institute
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSC 385

---

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS – Application for leave to appeal from VCAT under Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) s 148 – Whether question of law – Whether real or significant argument that Tribunal was in error – No errors of law – Leave refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	In person with Mr M Gronow (appearing under Victorian Bar Duty Barrister Scheme)
For the Defendant	Mr A Clements QC with Ms R Howe	Minter Ellison

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 2

Background Facts............................................................................................................................... 2

VCAT proceeding......................................................................................................................... 2

Supreme Court proceeding......................................................................................................... 4

Applicable law.................................................................................................................................... 4

Self-Represented Litigant............................................................................................................ 4

Leave to Appeal............................................................................................................................ 5

Affidavits............................................................................................................................................. 7

Submissions........................................................................................................................................ 9

The Hearing....................................................................................................................................... 10

Consideration.................................................................................................................................... 12

Ground (a): whether it was an error of natural justice for the Member to prefer the unsworn statement of Ms Gec, without providing reasons or opportunity for plaintiff to cross examine 12

Ground (b): whether the Tribunal erred in rejecting balance of plaintiff’s claims after finding racial discrimination proven...................................................................................................... 21

Ground (c): whether the Tribunal erred in law in not providing adequate reasons as to why the plaintiff’s evidence was not accepted over Ms Brown’s regarding the ‘monkey’ comment       23

Ground (d): whether the plaintiff was denied procedural fairness by the Tribunal in failing to consider discrimination on basis of presumed disability........................................... 25

Ground (e): whether the Tribunal fell into an error of law in concluding that plaintiff’s complaints did not fall within EO Act........................................................................................................ 26

Other Grounds Advanced by Plaintiff Personally.................................................................... 27

Bias. 27

Inconsistent findings................................................................................................................... 28

Factual findings not open.......................................................................................................... 29

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 31

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

1. On 10 July 2015, Member A Dea of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘VCAT’ or ‘Tribunal’) made orders that discrimination on the basis of race was proven under s 125(a)(ii) Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (‘the EO Act’) due to comments made comparing Graham Dirckze (‘the plaintiff’) to a monkey by a Holmesglen staff member, but all other claims under the EO Act were not proven and were dismissed.

1. The plaintiff seeks leave to appeal the Member’s final order dismissing the balance of the claims pursuant to s 148 Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (‘the VCAT Act’).  The principles applicable are well known and set out below.

1. I conclude that there is no real or significant argument that the Tribunal fell into error in dismissing the complaints made by the plaintiff.  I further find that if I am wrong in my conclusion that there is no real or significant argument to be put that error exists, then I consider that…