Dunstan v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (No 2)

The case of Dunstan v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (No 2) involves the applicant, Dunstan, who is claiming damages for misfeasance in public office against the third, fourth, and fifth respondents, who were officers of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) and the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). The applicant alleges that between September 1993 and July 1997, the respondents published false and misleading information about him and his employment, as well as about his sex discrimination complaint, which caused him detriment. The central legal issue in this case is whether the respondents misfeased in public office by publishing false and misleading information about the applicant and his employment and the sex discrimination complaint. The court had to determine whether the respondents acted with the intention to harm the applicant by their actions or whether they merely acted negligently or without proper consideration of the applicant's interests.

The court found that the applicant's claims of misfeasance in public office should be dismissed. The court rejected the applicant's allegations that the third and fifth respondents, along with other officers of the HREOC, attempted to conceal discrimination by the ATO against him by colluding about the contents of their various documents, misdescribing the nature of the applicant's complaints, and taking other steps to avoid criticism and delay proper consideration of the applicant's circumstances. The court concluded that the applicant's allegations of a conspiracy to harm him were unfounded and that the respondents' actions were not motivated by a desire to cause him harm. Instead, the court found that the respondents acted with the intention of fulfilling their public duties and did not intend to cause the applicant detriment.

As a result, the court dismissed the applicant's claims against the respondents. The court found that the applicant's allegations of misfeasance in public office were unfounded and that the respondents did not act with the intention to harm the applicant. The court also found that the applicant's claims for damages at common law for misfeasance in public office should be dismissed. The court ordered that the application be dismissed against the respondents and that the parties be given the opportunity to make submissions as to costs.