EJUEYITSI v THE UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND
[2011] FMCA 281
•11 April 2011
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| EJUEYITSI v THE UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND | [2011] FMCA 281 |
| HUMAN RIGHTS – Ruling on application by respondent to transfer proceeding to Brisbane Registry. |
| Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 |
| Applicant: | VINCENT EJUEYITSI |
| Respondent: | THE UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND |
| File Number: | MLG 279 of 2011 |
| Judgment of: | Burchardt FM |
| Hearing date: | 11 April 2011 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 11 April 2011 |
| Delivered at: | Melbourne |
| Delivered on: | 11 April 2011 |
REPRESENTATION
| The Applicant: | In person |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr Condliffe |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Brian Bartley & Associates |
ORDERS
The proceeding be transferred to the Queensland Registry of this Court.
Costs be reserved.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE |
MLG 279 of 2011
| VINCENT EJUEYITSI |
Applicant
And
| THE UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Revised from transcript)
On 2 March 2011, the applicant filed an application in this Court’s human rights jurisdiction. The final orders sought are said to be refund of full fees, time and transport costs. This application plainly arises out of, on any view, an unsuccessful interrelationship between the applicant and The University of Queensland following which
Mr Ejueyitsi clearly feels very strongly that he was inappropriately the subject of discrimination. That is strongly denied by The University, which is clearly sensitive to such assertions.
On 6 April 2011, the respondent filed an extensive response together with an application in a case and supporting material annexed to an affidavit of Elizabeth Grace Conlan also filed on the same day. The application in a case seeks that this matter be transferred to the Brisbane Registry of the Court and that the applicant pay the costs of and incidental to the application on a party-party basis. There is also reference in the materials to the dismissal of the application on a summary basis. As I indicated earlier, there is no question of taking the summary dismissal application because Mr Ejueyitsi has not had enough time to put on any answering material or consider his position.
Thus, the only matter before the Court is whether or not it should be transferred. In support of the application to transfer, the respondent relies essentially upon the logistics involved in running the case. In the affidavit of Ms Conlan, at paragraph 18, there are no less than eight witnesses indicated who would require to be called as the matter is presently indicated. That number might go up or down depending upon the circumstances but certainly as things stand, it is anticipated that all of them would be required. The respondent also points to the fact that the applicant has issued and is still prosecuting a claim in the State Magistrates Court which it submits is in many ways very similar to the claim here.
Mr Ejueyitsi points to the fact that he has issued in the State where he lives. This is where he wishes to litigate and he submits that the case is fundamentally of a different character to that in the State Magistrates Court in Queensland. This case is about his human rights difficulties whereas that is a contractual matter. I am prepared to accept that latter submission. The character of the claim in this Court is different in its nature to that in the Queensland State Court.
The authorities show that the determination of transfer applications such as these involves in the ultimate adopting the course that is best suited to the proper administration of justice. Subsidiary considerations often felt to be significant are first, that the applicant is entitled to issue in the registry or place of their choice provided that choice is not capricious or done, so to speak, deliberately to cause difficulty to a respondent. Mr Ejueyitsi tells me he lives in Victoria and I see no reason to doubt his word. He has therefore issued regularly in this registry.
But another matter that is almost invariably taken into proper consideration is the convenience of both parties as to where the trial should occur. Clearly, a trial in Queensland would be less convenient to Mr Ejueyitsi than a trial in Melbourne, but I note that he is apparently contemplating pursuing his case in the Queensland State Magistrates Court in any event. Whatever difficulties there might be for him in litigating in Queensland, he has shown by experience that he is able to deal with them.
Putting the matter from the other perspective, The University of Queensland by its nature is an organisation wholly based in Queensland. Their solicitor’s affidavit shows it has no campus or other entity in existence in Victoria. The proposition that eight witnesses should all be flown to Melbourne for the trial to occur here is, in my view, radically unsound. It is quite clear that the proper exercise of my discretion is to transfer this matter for trial in the Queensland Registry and I will reserve costs.
I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Burchardt FM
Associate:
Date: 11 April 2011
0
0