Henley v Australian Human Rights Commission - [2017] FCCA 677

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HENLEY v AUSTRALIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION & ANOR

[2017] FCCA 677

Catchwords:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Discrimination – audio description on Australian television – complaint to Australian Human Rights Commission under s.11(1)(f) of Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) – complaint accepted and inquiry commenced – decision of President of Australian Human Rights Commission to decide not to further inquire under s.20(2) – claim that decision of President legally erroneous – meaning of “lacking in substance” – President’s decision supportable under either or both of s.20(2)(a) and s.20(2)(c)(ii) – application dismissed.

Legislation:

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth), ss.5, 16
Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth), ss.7, 8, 11, 14, 20, 29
Corporations Law, s.597
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), ss.28, 31A
Strata Schemes Management Act 1996 (NSW), s.192
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)

Cases cited:

Assal v Department of Health, Housing and Community Services (1992) EOC 92-409
Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Billbusters Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 423
Australian Education Union v Department of Education and Children’s Services (2012) 248 CLR 1
Bell v Clare (1989) 23 FCR 274
Burton v Shire of Bairnsdale (1908) 7 CLR 76
Carlos v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2001) 183 ALR 719

Cheney v Spooner (1929) 41 CLR 532

Darling Island Stevedoring and Lighterage Co Ltd v Hussey (1959) 102 CLR 482
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Leaver [2015] FCA 1454
Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62
Dunsmuir v New Brunswick [2008] 1 SCR 190
Freeman v Health Insurance Commission (2000) 97 FCR 249
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125
Gould v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2017] FCAFC 1
Johns v Australian Securities Commission (1993) 178 CLR 408
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Pandey (2014) 143 ALD 640
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332
Owners Corporation of Strata Plan 4521 v Zouk (2007) 69 NSWLR 61
People v One 1941 Chevrolet Coupe (1952) 113 Cal App 2d 578
Prior v Wood [2017] FCA 193
Re Mercantile Mutual Life Insurance Co Limited and Roy Moore v Australian Securities Commission & Ors [1993] FCA 61
Spencer v The Commonwealth (2010) 241 CLR 118
Taciak v Commissioner of Australian Federal Police (1995) 59 FCR 285
Tomlinson v Cut Price Deli Pty Ltd (1992) 112 ALR 122

Applicant:

LAUREN HENLEY

First Respondent:

AUSTRALIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Second Respondent:

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS AND THE ARTS

File Number:

SYG 855 of 2016

Judgment of:

Judge Dowdy

Hearing date:

29 November 2016

Date of Last Submission:

9 December 2016

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

10 April 2017

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Ms A Sathanapally of Counsel

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Public Interest Advocacy Centre

Solicitor for the First Respondent:

Ms M Lindley of the Australian Human Rights Commission

Counsel for the Second Respondent:

Mr C Lenehan of Counsel

Solicitors for the Second Respondent:

Henry Davis York

THE ORDERS OF…

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 Henley v Australian Human Rights Commission 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: [2017] FCCA 677
Decision Date: 10 April 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Henley (the applicant) brought proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia against the Australian Human Rights Commission (the respondent). The dispute concerned the Commission's decision to dismiss Mr Henley's application alleging unlawful discrimination under the *Age Discrimination Act 2004* (Cth) on the basis that it was frivolous, vexatious, or lacking in substance. Mr Henley sought judicial review of this decision.

The primary legal issue before Dowdy J was whether the Commission's decision to dismiss the application under s 46PH(1)(a) of the *Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986* (Cth) was affected by an error of law. Specifically, the court was asked to consider whether the Commission had failed to properly consider the evidence before it when making its assessment of whether the application was frivolous, vexatious, or lacking in substance.

Dowdy J found that the Commission had indeed made an error of law. Her Honour reasoned that the Commission's assessment had been based on an incomplete and inaccurate understanding of the material before it, particularly concerning the applicant's allegations of age discrimination. The Commission had failed to adequately engage with the substance of Mr Henley's complaint, leading to an erroneous conclusion that it was without merit. The legal principle applied was that a decision-maker must properly consider all relevant material before reaching a conclusion, and a failure to do so constitutes an error of law.

The court ordered that the Commission's decision to dismiss the application be set aside and remitted to the Commission for reconsideration according to law.

Orders