ANTI DISCRIMINATION LAW – racial discrimination – complaint lodged with Human rights and Equal Opportunity Commission – complaint terminated – application to Federal Court – where action lies only against the respondent to the terminated complaint - whether appellant was respondent to complaint in the Commission - whether respondent requires extension of time – whether proceeding competent.
ANTHONY GRIGOR-SCOTT v JEREMY JONES NSD261 OF 2007
EMMETT, LANDER & TRACEY JJ 28 FEBRUARY 2008 SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD261 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
ANTHONY GRIGOR-SCOTT Appellant
AND:
JEREMY JONES Respondent
JUDGES:
EMMETT, LANDER & TRACEY JJ
DATE OF ORDER:
28 FEBRUARY 2008
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal be allowed.
2.The orders made on 21 July 2005 and 2 February 2007 be set aside.
3.In lieu of those orders, it be ordered that the proceeding be dismissed as incompetent.
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
NSD261 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
ANTHONY GRIGOR-SCOTT Appellant
AND:
JEREMY JONES Respondent
JUDGES:
EMMETT, LANDER & TRACEY JJ
DATE:
28 FEBRUARY 2008
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
On the application of the respondent, Mr Jeremy Jones, a judge of the Court declared, on 2 February 2007, that the appellant, Mr Anthony Grigor-Scott, had engaged in conduct rendered unlawful by Part IIA of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) (the Discrimination Act) by having published or allowing to be published, on the World Wide Web, a document described as “Bible Believers’ Newsletter # 242”. His Honour also ordered Mr Grigor-Scott to remove that document from the relevant website and restrained Mr Grigor-Scott from publishing or republishing, to the public, that document, any material with substantially similar content to that document and any other material that conveys any of the following imputations:
·there is a serious doubt that the holocaust occurred;
·it is unlikely that there were homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz;
·Jewish people who are offended by and challenge holocaust denial are of limited intelligence; and
·some Jewish people, for improper purposes, including financial gain, exaggerated the number of Jews killed during World War II and the circumstances in which they were killed.
Mr Jones is the President of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. There is no…
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.
Continue reading Grigor-Scott v Jones
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Grigor-Scott v Jones [2008] FCAFC 14
Case
[2008] FCAFC 14
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Grigor-Scott v Jones involved a legal dispute where the parties were in disagreement over the procedural aspects of a court proceeding. The matter was ultimately heard in the court of appeal, where the central issue was whether the lower court had correctly exercised its jurisdiction in joining Anthony Grigor-Scott as a respondent. The appeal arose from the decision of the primary judge, who ordered that Grigor-Scott be joined as a respondent on 21 July 2005, a decision that was subsequently affirmed on 2 February 2007.
The legal issues that the court had to address were primarily concerned with the procedural correctness of the lower court's decisions. The appellant argued that the lower court lacked the jurisdiction to join Grigor-Scott as a respondent and that this procedural error rendered the entire proceeding incompetent. The court needed to determine if the lower court's decisions to join Grigor-Scott and to proceed with the case were legally sound.
In its reasoning, the court of appeal found that the primary judge's decision to join Grigor-Scott as a respondent was flawed due to the lack of proper service of the originating process on him. As a result, the court held that the proceeding was incompetent. The court further found that the decision to join Grigor-Scott, as well as the subsequent orders affirming this decision, should be set aside. Consequently, the court concluded that the proceeding should be dismissed as incompetent.
The final orders of the court were that the appeal be allowed, the orders made on 21 July 2005 and 2 February 2007 be set aside, and the proceeding be dismissed as incompetent. Additionally, due to the uncertainty regarding Grigor-Scott's position, no order was made as to the costs of the proceeding or the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be allowed.
2. The orders made on 21 July 2005 and 2 February 2007 be set aside.
3.
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
It follows that, if the appeal were limited to the grounds originally stated in the notice of appeal, the appeal would be dismissed. CONCLUSION The appeal should be allowed. The orders made by the primary judge should be set aside. In particular the order of 21 July 2005, that Anthony Grigor-Scott be joined as a respondent to the proceeding should be set aside. It then follows that the orders made on 2 February 2007 should be set aside. In lieu of those orders, there should be an order that the proceeding be dismissed as incompetent. Since there is considerable doubt as to the position taken by Mr Grigor-Scott, who did not at any stage file an appearance, there should be no order as to the costs of the proceeding. For the same reason, there should be no order as to the costs of the appeal.