Killeen v Combined Communications Network Pty Ltd - [2011] FCA 27

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Killeen v Combined Communications Network Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 27

Citation: Killeen v Combined Communications Network Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 27

Parties: GREGORY KILLEEN v COMBINED COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK PTY LTD (ACN 080 990 978), AUSTAXI GROUP PTY LTD (ACN 116 209 057) and DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AND INFRASTRUCTURE

File number: NSD 496 of 2010

Judge: EDMONDS J

Date of judgment: 31 January 2011

Catchwords:
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – jurisdiction conferred by s 46PO of Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) in consequence of termination of complaint alleging unlawful discrimination pursuant to s 46PH(1)(i) – claims for relief against alleged direct and indirect contravention of ss 9.1 and 9.3 of the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002 (Cth) – by consent separate question ordered to be determined prior to trial as to proper construction of ss 1.11, 9.1 and 9.3 of the Disability Standards – whether appropriate to answer question where only limited facts agreed or found but where determination of answer may lead to bringing proceeding to a swift conclusion.

Held: Question to be determined; and answered ‘no’.

Legislation:
Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) ss 46PH(1)(i), 46PH(2), 46PO
Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)
Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth)

Federal Court Rules O 29 r 2
Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002 (Cth) ss 1.11, 9.1, 9.3

Cases cited: Bass v Permanent Trustee Co Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 334 cited
CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd (1997) 187 CLR 384 cited
Commonwealth v Baume (1905) 2 CLR 405 cited
Cooper Brookes (Wollongong) Pty Limited v Federal Commissioner for Taxation (1981) 147 CLR 297 cited
IW v City of Perth (1997) 191 CLR 1 cited
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 cited
White v Designated Manager of IP Australia (No 2) (2008) 171 FCR 15 cited

Date of hearing: 1 December 2010

Place: Sydney

Division: GENERAL DIVISION

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 66

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr A Robertson SC with Ms K Eastman

Solicitor for the Applicant: Public Interest Advocacy Centre

Solicitor for the First Respondent: Douglas Lawman

Counsel for the Third Respondent: Ms NL Sharp

Solicitor for the Third Respondent: TressCox Lawyers

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 496 of 2010

BETWEEN:
GREGORY KILLEEN
Applicant

AND:
COMBINED COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK PTY LTD (ACN 080 990 978)
First Respondent

AUSTAXI GROUP PTY LTD (ACN 116 209 057)
Second Respondent

DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Third Respondent

JUDGE:

EDMONDS J

DATE OF ORDER:

31 JANUARY 2011

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The proceedings be listed for further directions on 28 February 2011 at 9:30 a.m.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

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 Killeen v Combined Communications Network Pty Ltd 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: [2011] FCA 27
Decision Date: 31 January 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Killeen v Combined Communications Network Pty Ltd involved the plaintiff, Killeen, who sought relief against the defendant, Combined Communications Network Pty Ltd, for alleged direct and indirect contraventions of sections 9.1 and 9.3 of the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002 (Cth). The dispute was adjudicated by the Australian court, which was vested with jurisdiction under section 46PO of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) following the termination of a complaint alleging unlawful discrimination under section 46PH(1)(i).

The primary legal issue before the court was the proper construction of sections 1.11, 9.1, and 9.3 of the Disability Standards. Specifically, the court was tasked with determining whether it was appropriate to answer a question on the proper construction of these sections when only limited facts were agreed upon or found, yet the determination of the answer could potentially expedite the resolution of the proceedings.

In its reasoning, the court acknowledged the importance of efficiently resolving the matter while ensuring that the legal interpretation was accurate and comprehensive. The court concluded that it was appropriate to address the construction question at that stage, despite the limited factual background, because doing so could streamline the proceedings and facilitate a quicker resolution. The court answered the question 'no', indicating that the construction of the relevant sections did not support the plaintiff's claims under the circumstances presented.

The court made an order that the proceedings be listed for further directions on 28 February 2011 at 9:30 a.m., allowing the parties to prepare for the next stages of the litigation. This decision underscored the court's commitment to managing the case effectively while upholding the integrity of the legal process.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The proceedings be listed for further directions on 28 February 2011 at 9:30 a.m.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Citation:	Killeen v Combined Communications Network Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 27
Parties:	GREGORY KILLEEN v COMBINED COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK PTY LTD (ACN 080 990 978), AUSTAXI GROUP PTY LTD (ACN 116 209 057) and DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AND INFRASTRUCTURE
File number:	NSD 496 of 2010
Judge:	EDMONDS J
Date of judgment:	31 January 2011
Catchwords:	DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – jurisdiction conferred by s 46PO of Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) in consequence of termination of complaint alleging unlawful discrimination pursuant to s 46PH(1)(i) – claims for relief against alleged direct and indirect contravention of ss 9.1 and 9.3 of the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002 (Cth) – by consent separate question ordered to be determined prior to trial as to proper construction of ss 1.11, 9.1 and 9.3 of the Disability Standards – whether appropriate to answer question where only limited facts agreed or found but where determination of answer may lead to bringing proceeding to a swift conclusion. Held: Question to be determined; and answered ‘no’.
Legislation:	Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) ss 46PH(1)(i), 46PH(2), 46PO Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) Federal Court Rules O 29 r 2 Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002 (Cth) ss 1.11, 9.1, 9.3

Cases cited:	Bass v Permanent Trustee Co Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 334 cited CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd (1997) 187 CLR 384 cited Commonwealth v Baume (1905) 2 CLR 405 cited Cooper Brookes (Wollongong) Pty Limited v Federal Commissioner for Taxation (1981) 147 CLR 297 cited IW v City of Perth (1997) 191 CLR 1 cited Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 cited White v Designated Manager of IP Australia (No 2) (2008) 171 FCR 15 cited
Date of hearing:	1 December 2010
Place:	Sydney
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	66
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr A Robertson SC with Ms K Eastman
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Public Interest Advocacy Centre
Solicitor for the First Respondent:		Douglas Lawman
Counsel for the Third Respondent:	Ms NL Sharp
Solicitor for the Third Respondent:	TressCox Lawyers

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	NSD 496 of 2010

JUDGE:	EDMONDS J
DATE OF ORDER:	31 JANUARY 2011
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY