DOEPGEN -v- MUGARINYA COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED [2014] WASCA 67

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2014] WASCA 67
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:	CACV:66/2013	Heard:	23 JANUARY 2014
Coram:	PULLIN JA NEWNES JA	Delivered:	28/03/14
No of pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	MONIKA MARIA DOEPGEN MUGARINYA COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED
Catchwords:	Administrative law Procedural fairness Application in State Administrative Tribunal under Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA) Appellant without legal representation Whether Tribunal should have referred appellant to pro bono assistance scheme before hearing application
Legislation:	State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 32(6), s 105
Case References:	Dietrich v The Queen [1992] HCA 57; (1992) 177 CLR 292 Doepgen and Mugarinya Community Association Inc [No 2] [2013] WASAT 67 R v Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; Ex parte Angliss Group [1969] HCA 10; (1969) 122 CLR 546 Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; Ex parte Lam [2003] HCA 6; (2003) 214 CLR 1 The State of New South Wales v Canellis (1994) 181 CLR 309

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : DOEPGEN -v- MUGARINYA COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED [2014] WASCA 67 CORAM : PULLIN JA

NEWNES JA

HEARD : 23 JANUARY 2014 DELIVERED : 28 MARCH 2014 FILE NO/S : CACV 66 of 2013 BETWEEN : MONIKA MARIA DOEPGEN

Appellant

AND

MUGARINYA COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : JUSTICE J A CHANEY (PRESIDENT)

Citation : DOEPGEN and MUGARINYA COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION INC [No 2] [2013] WASAT 67

File No : EOA 34 of 2012

Catchwords:

Administrative law - Procedural fairness - Application in State Administrative Tribunal under Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA) - Appellant without legal representation - Whether Tribunal should have referred appellant to pro bono assistance scheme before hearing application

Legislation:

State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 32(6), s 105

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : Mr A J Power

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : Hammond Legal

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Dietrich v The Queen [1992] HCA 57; (1992) 177 CLR 292
Doepgen and Mugarinya Community Association Inc [No 2] [2013] WASAT 67
R v Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; Ex parte Angliss Group [1969] HCA 10; (1969) 122 CLR 546
Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; Ex parte Lam [2003] HCA 6; (2003) 214 CLR 1
The State of New South Wales v Canellis (1994) 181 CLR 309

1 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: This is an appeal against a decision of the State Administrative Tribunal, pursuant to s 105 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act). The appellant requires leave to appeal: s 105(1) of the SAT Act.

2 The appeal comes before the court on a registrar's notice to attend to show cause why…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Doepgen v Mugarinya Community Association Incorporated and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] WASCA 67
Decision Date: 28 MARCH 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Doepgen v Mugarinya Community Association Incorporated, the appellant, Doepgen, sought relief under the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA) from the State Administrative Tribunal. The dispute involved allegations of discrimination by the Mugarinya Community Association Incorporated, which Doepgen claimed had violated her rights. The appellant proceeded without legal representation, raising concerns about procedural fairness during the tribunal's hearing of her application. The central issue before the court was whether the Tribunal should have referred Doepgen to a pro bono legal assistance scheme before proceeding with the hearing of her application.

The court examined the principles of procedural fairness, particularly the duty of the Tribunal to ensure that a party without legal representation is aware of available legal assistance. The court considered the circumstances under which the Tribunal should intervene to offer such assistance and whether the failure to do so constituted a breach of natural justice. It assessed the balance between the rights of the parties and the procedural obligations of the Tribunal in ensuring a fair hearing. The court concluded that the Tribunal was not obligated to refer Doepgen to the pro bono scheme as a matter of procedural fairness, given the specific circumstances of the case.

In light of the above reasoning, the court dismissed Doepgen's appeal. The Tribunal's decision to proceed with the hearing without referring Doepgen to the pro bono scheme did not constitute a breach of natural justice or procedural fairness. The court upheld the Tribunal's judgment, affirming that the appellant's rights were adequately protected through the procedural mechanisms available. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the original decision of the Tribunal was confirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.