House v ACT (No 2) - [2025] ACTSC 207

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	House v ACT (No 2)
Citation:	[2025] ACTSC 207
Hearing Date:	On the papers
Decision Date:	20 May 2025
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [14]
Catchwords:	HUMAN RIGHTS – EXTENSION OF TIME – Previous dismissal of application for extension of time because of inadequate pleadings – where pleadings amended to address inadequacies – where first defendant now does not oppose an extension of time – extension of time in general terms granted in the circumstances
Legislation Cited:	Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT), ss 8(2), 27(2), 40B, 40C
Cases Cited:	House v ACT [2025] ACTSC 122
Parties:	Paul Girrawah House (First Plaintiff) Leah Matilda House (Second Plaintiff) Australian Capital Territory (First Defendant) Minister for Heritage (Second Defendant)
Representation:	Solicitors Griffin Legal (First and Second Plaintiff) ACT Government Solicitor (First Defendant)
File Number:	SC 381 of 2024

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

1․Before me is an application in proceeding dated 28 April 2025 filed by the plaintiffs, Leah Matilda House and Paul Girrawah House. The application seeks that, pursuant to ss 40C(2)(a) and 40C(3) of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) (HR Act), the plaintiffs be granted an extension of the time for commencing proceedings against the first defendant, the Australian Capital Territory, to 29 November 2024.
2․This application is made by the plaintiffs in the context of a prior application dated 28 January 2025 for leave under ss 40C(2)(a) and 40C(3) of the HR Act. That application sought a similar extension of time. On 28 March 2025, I indicated that I would dismiss that application, because I considered that the pleadings did not adequately allege how breaches of ss 8(2) and 27(2) of the HR Act by the defendants had occurred. I did not consider it appropriate in those circumstances to grant an extension of time: see House v ACT [2025] ACTSC 122.
3․The orders that I made on 28 March 2025 were as follows:
1․ The plaintiffs are granted leave and directed to file and serve an amended originating claim and statement of claim and any further application in proceeding seeking an extension of time under s 40C(3) of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) by 17 April 2025.
2․    The proceedings are listed for directions before the Registrar on 28 April 2025 at 2:30pm.
3․    Parties are directed to confer and attempt to agree upon directions to be made on 28 April 2025 and have leave to provide any proposed directions to the Registrar in advance of that hearing.
4․    The costs of the application in proceeding dated 28 January 2025 and the costs thrown away by the amendment of the claim and pleadings are reserved.

Note: The Registrar may refer the proceedings to Mossop J on 28 April 2025.
4․As will be apparent from the terms of the above orders, I failed to give effect to the intention which I expressed at [26] of my reasons to dismiss the application. I will amend those orders pursuant to the inherent power…

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 House v ACT (No 2)

Details

AGLC: House v ACT (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 207
Case: [2025] ACTSC 207
Decision Date: 20 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were House and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). The dispute centred around the extension of time for the applicant to lodge an application under the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth). The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The case was brought before the court after the initial application for an extension of time was dismissed due to the applicant's inadequate pleadings. After the pleadings were amended to address the inadequacies, the court was required to decide whether to grant the extension of time considering the first defendant's lack of opposition.

The court considered the legal issues regarding the appropriate circumstances in which an extension of time could be granted, particularly in cases where the defendant did not oppose the extension. The court acknowledged that an extension of time may be granted in general terms if the application was made promptly and the applicant had a reasonable excuse for the delay. The court also noted that the first defendant did not oppose the extension of time and that the applicant had amended the pleadings to address the inadequacies that led to the dismissal of the initial application.

The court found that, in the circumstances of this case, it was appropriate to grant the extension of time. The applicant had amended the pleadings to address the inadequacies that led to the dismissal of the initial application, and the first defendant did not oppose the extension. The court also found that the applicant had acted promptly in making the application and that the delay in lodging the application was due to circumstances beyond the applicant's control. Therefore, the court granted the extension of time in general terms.

The court ordered that the applicant's application for an extension of time be granted, and the applicant was permitted to lodge the application under the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth) within the extended time period. The court also ordered that the first defendant bear its own costs of the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [14]

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.