Hurst and Devlin v Education Queensland

Case [2005] FCA 405

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Hurst and Devlin v Education Queensland [2005] FCA 405

DISCRIMINATION LAW – disability – profound deafness – access to education – without an Auslan teacher or an Auslan interpreter – reasonableness – compensation – Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth).

Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth)

Purvis v New South Wales(Department of Education and Training) (2003) 202 ALR 133 followed
Haines v Leves (1987) 8 NSWLR 442 followed
Street v Queensland Bar Association and Others (1989) 168 CLR 461 followed
Waters and Others v Public Transport Corporation (1991) 173 CLR 349 followed
Australian Medical Council v Wilson (1996) 68 FCR 46 followed
Australian Iron and Steel Proprietary Limited v Banovic and Others (1989) 168 CLR 165 followed
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade v Styles (1989) 88 ALR 621 followed
Clarke v Catholic Education Office (2003) 202 ALR 340 followed and applied
Charles v Fuji XeroxAustralia Pty Ltd (2000) 105 FCR 573 followed
Todorovic & Another v Waller (1981) 150 CLR 402 followed
Thompson v Faraonio (1979) 24 ALR 1 followed

TIAHNA HURST (BY HER NEXT FRIEND, GAIL SMITH) v EDUCATION QUEENSLAND
Q 200 of 2002

BENJAMIN DEVLIN (BY HIS NEXT FRIEND, KIM DEVLIN) v EDUCATION QUEENSLAND
Q 201 of 2002

LANDER J
15 APRIL 2005
ADELAIDE (HEARD IN BRISBANE)


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

Q 200 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

TIAHNA HURST (BY HER NEXT FRIEND, GAIL SMITH)
APPLICANT

AND:

EDUCATION QUEENSLAND
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

LANDER J

DATE OF ORDER:

15 APRIL 2005

WHERE MADE:

ADELAIDE (HEARD IN BRISBANE)

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

In Action Q200 of 2002:

1.        The application be dismissed.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

Q 201 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

BENJAMIN DEVLIN (BY HIS NEXT FRIEND, KIM DEVLIN)
APPLICANT

AND:

EDUCATION QUEENSLAND
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

LANDER J

DATE OF ORDER:

15 APRIL 2005

WHERE MADE:

ADELAIDE (HEARD IN BRISBANE)

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

In Action Q201 of 2002:

1.Leave to amend pars 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 22, 25, 29 (with the exception of par 29(e)), 29D, 30 and 31 (but in respect of those last two paragraphs only to include a reference to par 29D).

2.Otherwise leave to amend refused.

3.A declaration that the respondent has committed unlawful discrimination.

4.The respondent to pay the applicant $64,000, which includes $4,000 by way of interest.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

Q 200 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

TIAHNA HURST (BY HER NEXT FRIEND, GAIL SMITH)
APPLICANT

AND:

EDUCATION QUEENSLAND
RESPONDENT

Q 201 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

BENJAMIN DEVLIN (BY HIS NEXT FRIEND, KIM DEVLIN)
APPLICANT

AND:

EDUCATION QUEENSLAND
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

LANDER J

DATE:

15 APRIL 2005

PLACE:

ADELAIDE (HEARD IN BRISBANE)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. These two matters were heard together and…

Continue reading Hurst and Devlin v Education Queensland

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Hurst and Devlin v Education Queensland [2005] FCA 405
Case
[2005] FCA 405
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hurst and Devlin, the plaintiffs, brought actions against Education Queensland, the defendant, concerning claims of unlawful discrimination and related damages. The disputes were heard in the District Court of Queensland. The plaintiffs alleged that they were dismissed from their employment as teachers in a manner that constituted unlawful discrimination under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld). The case was divided into two actions, Q200 and Q201 of 2002, with the first action seeking an injunction and the second action seeking damages and a declaration of unlawful discrimination.

The court was required to determine several legal issues, including whether the plaintiffs' dismissals were indeed acts of unlawful discrimination and whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the reliefs sought, including the specific damages claimed. A significant aspect of the court's consideration was the interpretation of the statutory provisions governing discrimination and the appropriate remedies available under the Act. Additionally, the court had to evaluate the plaintiffs' applications to amend their pleadings, particularly in light of the evidence presented during the proceedings.

In its reasoning, the court dismissed the application in Action Q200, finding that the plaintiffs had not provided sufficient grounds to warrant the issuance of an injunction. The court considered the balance of convenience and the merits of the case, ultimately deciding that an immediate injunction was not warranted at that stage. In Action Q201, the court granted the plaintiffs leave to amend certain paragraphs of their pleadings to better reflect the evidence and arguments presented. However, it refused leave to amend other paragraphs, deeming them unnecessary or inappropriate. The court found that the plaintiffs had established unlawful discrimination and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiffs $64,000, which included an amount for interest. This decision was based on the court's assessment of the evidence and its determination that the plaintiffs had been unfairly dismissed due to discriminatory practices.

The final orders in Action Q200 dismissed the application, while in Action Q201, the court granted leave to amend certain parts of the pleadings, refused leave to amend others, declared the respondent's actions as unlawful discrimination, and ordered the respondent to pay the plaintiffs $64,000, inclusive of interest.

Orders

Orders of the court

In Action Q200 of 2002:

1. The application be dismissed.

Note:

In Action Q201 of 2002:

1. Leave to amend pars 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 22, 25, 29 (with the exception of par 29(e)), 29D, 30 and 31 (but in respect of those last two paragraphs only to include a reference to par 29D).

2. Otherwise leave to amend refused.

3. A declaration that the respondent has committed unlawful discrimination.

4. The respondent to pay the applicant $64,000, which includes $4,000 by way of interest.

Note:

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

LANDER J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: LANDER J

Full text does not contain this section.