Greenfield v Australia Catholic University - [2010] NSWADT 104

CITATION: Greenfield v Australia Catholic University [2010] NSWADT 104

DIVISION: Equal Opportunity Division

PARTIES:
APPLICANT
Susanna Greenfield
RESPONDENT
Australian Catholic University

FILE NUMBER: 081131

HEARING DATES: 2 December 2009

DATE OF DECISION:
30 April 2010

BEFORE: Huntsman C - Judicial Member

CATCHWORDS: Application for dismissal on grounds case settled - solicitor’s authority to settle

LEGISLATION CITED: Sections 102 Anti-Discrimination Act 1977; sections 74, 86, 86A, 88(1) and 105
Administrative Decisions Act 1977

CASES CITED: Masters v Cameron [1954] HCA 72; (1954) 91 CLR 353; Sebastian v Rail Infrastructure Corporation &Anor (EOD) [2006] NSWADTAP 44
Sebastian v Rail Infrastructure Corporation [2005] NSW ADT 281
FvC,B and State of Queensland [2007] QADT 13
Wandel & Golterman GMBH & Co v Wandel Global Services Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 1609
Harvey v Phillips [1956] HCA 27; Owners Corporation Strata Plan 62285 and Ors v Betona Corporation (NSW) Pty Ltd and Ors [2006] NSWSC 216

REPRESENTATION:
APPLICANT
S Friend, solicitor
RESPONDENT
Mr Seck, Counsel, instructed by Carroll & O’Dea solicitors

ORDERS: 1.The Complaint will be dismissed on 30 May 2010 if, before that date, the Respondent: (a) pays the settlement sum to the Applicant, and(b) provides written notification to the Applicant that the requirement to repay the student loan has been waived ( as per clause 2(b) of draft Deed of Release)
2.If the conditions in paragraph 1 are met, the Respondent is to provide the Tribunal with evidence to that effect prior to 30 May 2010.
3. If the conditions in paragraph 1 are not met, the matter is to be listed for further directions.
4.The application by the Respondent for an order that the Applicant pay the Respondent’s costs relating to the application is refused.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1.This was an application by the Respondent for various orders, including an order that the application be dismissed. The basis of the application for an order that the application be dismissed, is that the Respondent states that an agreement was reached by the parties on 11 February 2009 so that the matter was settled. The other orders sought by the Respondent include an order that the Respondent pay the Applicant a sum of money (the sum of money is in accordance with the settlement which the Respondent asserts was reached by parties); and an order that the Applicant pay the costs of the Respondent of the current proceedings.

2.The Applicant, Ms Greenfield, states that settlement was not reached and that no orders should be made by the Tribunal.

Background to the proceedings

3.On 18 February 2008 the Anti-Discrimination Board received a complaint from Ms Greenfield alleging discrimination on grounds of race in relation to her nursing studies whilst a student at Australian Catholic University. The President of the Anti-Discrimination Board referred the complaint to the Equal Opportunity Division of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal on 9 December 2008.

4.The matter was listed for a first case conference on 11 February 2009. The Tribunal file first case conference result sheet, indicates that R.Sutton, solicitor,…

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 Greenfield v Australia Catholic University 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: [2010] NSWADT 104
Decision Date: 30 April 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Greenfield brought an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for dismissal of their complaint against Australia Catholic University on the grounds that the case had settled. The key issue for the tribunal was whether the solicitor representing the Applicant had the authority to settle the case. The tribunal examined the authority given to the solicitor by the Applicant and considered whether this authority was sufficient for the solicitor to settle the case.

The tribunal found that the solicitor had the authority to settle the case as the Applicant had provided clear instructions to the solicitor to settle the case. The tribunal was satisfied that the solicitor had acted within the scope of their authority in settling the case. The tribunal also noted that the settlement was in the best interests of both parties and that the Applicant had not acted unreasonably in settling the case.

In light of the tribunal's findings, the application for dismissal was granted subject to certain conditions being met. The Respondent was required to pay the settlement sum to the Applicant and provide written notification that the requirement to repay the student loan had been waived. If these conditions were not met, the matter was to be listed for further directions. The tribunal also refused the Respondent's application for an order that the Applicant pay the Respondent's costs relating to the application.

In summary, the tribunal found that the solicitor representing the Applicant had the authority to settle the case and granted the application for dismissal subject to certain conditions being met. The tribunal also refused the Respondent's application for an order that the Applicant pay the Respondent's costs relating to the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.The Complaint will be dismissed on 30 May 2010 if, before that date, the Respondent: (a) pays the settlement sum to the Applicant, and(b) provides written notification to the Applicant that the requirement to repay the student loan has been waived ( as per clause 2(b) of draft Deed of Release)

2.If the conditions in paragraph 1 are met, the Respondent is to provide the Tribunal with evidence to that effect prior to 30 May 2010.

3. If the conditions in paragraph 1 are not met, the matter is to be listed for further directions.

4.The application by the Respondent for an order that the Applicant pay the Respondent’s costs relating to the application is refused.

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.

CITATION:	Greenfield v Australia Catholic University [2010] NSWADT 104
DIVISION:	Equal Opportunity Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Susanna Greenfield RESPONDENT Australian Catholic University
FILE NUMBER:	081131
HEARING DATES:	2 December 2009
DATE OF DECISION:	30 April 2010
BEFORE:	Huntsman C - Judicial Member
CATCHWORDS:	Application for dismissal on grounds case settled - solicitor’s authority to settle
LEGISLATION CITED:	Sections 102 Anti-Discrimination Act 1977; sections 74, 86, 86A, 88(1) and 105 Administrative Decisions Act 1977
CASES CITED:	Masters v Cameron [1954] HCA 72; (1954) 91 CLR 353; Sebastian v Rail Infrastructure Corporation &Anor (EOD) [2006] NSWADTAP 44 Sebastian v Rail Infrastructure Corporation [2005] NSW ADT 281 FvC,B and State of Queensland [2007] QADT 13 Wandel & Golterman GMBH & Co v Wandel Global Services Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 1609 Harvey v Phillips [1956] HCA 27; Owners Corporation Strata Plan 62285 and Ors v Betona Corporation (NSW) Pty Ltd and Ors [2006] NSWSC 216
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT S Friend, solicitor RESPONDENT Mr Seck, Counsel, instructed by Carroll & O’Dea solicitors
ORDERS:	1.The Complaint will be dismissed on 30 May 2010 if, before that date, the Respondent: (a) pays the settlement sum to the Applicant, and(b) provides written notification to the Applicant that the requirement to repay the student loan has been waived ( as per clause 2(b) of draft Deed of Release) 2.If the conditions in paragraph 1 are met, the Respondent is to provide the Tribunal with evidence to that effect prior to 30 May 2010. 3. If the conditions in paragraph 1 are not met, the matter is to be listed for further directions. 4.The application by the Respondent for an order that the Applicant pay the Respondent’s costs relating to the application is refused.