Docker v Young
[2006] FCA 952
•25 JULY 2006
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Docker v Young [2006] FCA 952
MEIRY DOCKER v TREVOR YOUNG
NSD 1238 of 2006ALLSOP J
25 JULY 2006
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 1238 of 2006
BETWEEN:
MEIRY DOCKER
APPLICANTAND:
TREVOR YOUNG
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
ALLSOP J
DATE OF ORDER:
25 JULY 2006
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Proceeding number NSD 1238 of 2006 and the matter therein involved to be transferred to the Federal Magistrates Court
2. Costs of the directions hearing be costs of the proceeding in the Magistrates Court.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 1238 of 2006
BETWEEN:
MEIRY DOCKER
APPLICANTAND:
TREVOR YOUNG
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
ALLSOP J
DATE:
25 JULY 2006
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
In this matter there is a claim under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) and the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) in relation to conduct said to have been undertaken by the respondent which is set out in an affidavit of the applicant of 26 June 2006. Annexed to the affidavit is the report of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission from the Complaints Handling Section about the matter.
It is not entirely clear from that as to whether the matters identified in Ms Docker’s affidavit were said by the respondent or whether the dispute is as to the place and character of the place where the matters were said.
The matter was filed in the Federal Court and was allocated to my docket by the sequential system of allocation. Without reducing the importance of the claims of both parties I think that the matter as it is exhibited in the application and the affidavit is one that is appropriate to be dealt with by the Federal Magistrates Court at first instance. The issues would appear straightforward. There may be factual disputes and there may be disputes about relief if a claim for relief is made out. However, I do not see the matter as complex and I see it as one which is appropriate for the resolution by the Federal Magistrates Court, which counsel and solicitors no doubt understand and the parties should understand, is a court set up under a law of the Commonwealth Parliament empowered by ch III of the Constitution, though inferior in status to the Federal Court.
The Federal Magistrates Court will have full power to deal with the matter and I propose to exercise the power given to the Court under Order 82, rule 6 of the Federal Court Rules.
Before making the order however I should say this. The Commission has indicated that there is no prospect of settlement. If the applicant’s affidavit is substantially correct serious issues as to the application of the Racial Discrimination Act would arise. I would urge the parties to heed with care and seriousness the advice of their respective legal representatives. The terms of the Racial Discrimination Act are important and fundamental provisions of a law of the Parliament in this country. They are not provisions for show. That said, it will be necessary for the dispute to be resolved if it cannot be resolved consensually. The relevant provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act that underpin the restraint of behaviour of the kind set out in Ms Docker’s affidavit, are viewed by the courts very seriously and I would urge the parties to recognise that this is a potentially very important case for them personally and one to be taken with the utmost gravity. Common sense and reason should also be brought to bear to avoid unnecessary costs if that can be done.
With that background I order for the reasons I have identified proceeding number NSD 1238 of 2006 and the matter therein involved to be transferred to the Federal Magistrates Court. Costs of the directions hearing be costs of the proceeding in the Magistrates Court.
I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Allsop. Associate:
Dated: 11 August 2006
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr L Docker Counsel for the Respondent: Mr G Elliot Solicitor for the Respondent: Martin Churchill Solicitors Date of Hearing: 25 July 2006 Date of Judgment: 25 July 2006
0
0
0