Lawrance v Refugee Review Tribunal & Ors (No.3)
[2008] FMCA 1586
•19 November 2008
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| LAWRANCE v REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ORS (No.3) | [2008] FMCA 1586 |
| HUMAN RIGHTS – Disability discrimination – sex discrimination – victimisation – sexual harassment. PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Summary dismissal. PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Costs – general order for costs. PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Leave to proceed – whether applicant should have leave to continue a proceeding. |
| Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth), s.17A Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986, s.46PO Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) Disability Services Act 1986 (Cth) Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, r.13.11 |
| Lawrance v Refugee Review Tribunal & Ors (No.2) [2008] FMCA 1499 Lawrance v Cth of Aust and Lawrance v AAT & Ors [2008] FMCA 1340 |
| Applicant: | AROHA LAWRANCE |
| First Respondent: | REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| Second Respondent: | COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA |
| Third Respondent: | CRS AUSTRALIA |
| Fourth Respondent: | DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES, HOUSING, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
| Fifth Respondent: | DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS |
| Sixth Respondent: | STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES |
| Seventh Respondent: | NSW GUARDIANSHIP TRIBUNAL |
| Eighth Respondent: | BEV SMITH |
| Ninth Respondent: | ANNE BRIMSON |
| Tenth Respondent: | JILL TOOHEY |
| Eleventh Respondent: | SUE MCILLHATTON |
| Twelfth Respondent: | PAULA CHRISTOFANNINI |
| Thirteenth Respondent: | JOHN GODFREY |
| Fourteenth Respondent: | MICHAEL PASFIELD |
| Fifteenth Respondent: | LYN ROGERS |
| File Number: | SYG 882 of 2008 |
| Judgment of: | Scarlett FM |
| Hearing date: | 19 November 2008 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 19 November 2008 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 19 November 2008 |
REPRESENTATION
| The Applicant: | Appeared in person |
| Appearance for the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Tenth, Eleventh and Fourteenth Respondents: | Ms Watson |
| Solicitor for the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Tenth, Eleventh and Fourteenth Respondents: | Australian Government Solicitor |
| Appearance for the Sixth and Seventh Respondents: | Ms Mee |
| Solicitor for the Sixth and Seventh Respondents: | I.V. Knight, Crown Solicitor |
| Ninth, Twelfth, Thirteenth and Fifteenth Respondents: | No appearance |
ORDERS
Leave to continue the application against the ninth, Twelfth, thirteenth and fifteenth respondents is refused.
No order for costs.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 882 of 2008
| AROHA LAWRANCE |
Applicant
And
| REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
First Respondent
| COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA |
Second Respondent
| CRS AUSTRALIA |
Third Respondent
| DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES, HOUSING, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
Fourth Respondent
| DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS |
Fifth Respondent
| STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES |
Sixth Respondent
| NSW GUARDIANSHIP TRIBUNAL |
Seventh Respondent
| BEV SMITH |
Eighth Respondent
| ANNE BRIMSON |
Ninth Respondent
| JILL TOOHEY |
Tenth Respondent
| SUE MCILLHATTON |
Eleventh Respondent
| PAULA CHRISTOFANNINI |
Twelfth Respondent
| JOHN GODFREY |
Thirteenth Respondent
| MICHAEL PASFIELD |
Fourteenth Respondent
| LYN ROGERS |
Fifteenth Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Background
I have today handed down a judgment in these proceedings, summarily dismissing the applicant’s claims against the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, tenth, eleventh and fourteenth respondents (Lawrance v Refugee Review Tribunal & Ors)[1]. I also ordered that the applicant should pay the costs of those respondents. The solicitors appearing for those respondents, Ms Watson and Ms Mee, have both told the Court that a fixed costs order would not be required and their clients would be satisfied with a general costs order, which I have already made.
[1] [2008] FMCA 1499.
Consequently, there is no need to make any order quantifying the costs to be paid.
There is another issue. The decision which I handed down earlier did not have any effect on the applicant’s claim against the ninth respondent, Anne Brimson, the twelfth respondent, Paula Christofanini, the thirteenth respondent, John Godfrey, or the fifteenth respondent, Lyn Rogers. However, on 26th September 2008 Turner FM handed down his decision in Lawrance v Cth of Aust & Ors and Lawrance v AAT & Ors[2], which involved the same applicant and a number of respondents who are also respondents to this application.
[2] [2008] FMCA 1340.
The legal advisers for the respondents drew the Court’s attention to this decision and submitted that it was of some relevance to the present matter. What appears to be particularly relevant is that his Honour made some orders that appear to have a considerable effect on the remainder of this matter.
His Honour ordered:
(4)Pursuant to Rule 13.11(2) and (3) the Court orders:
(a)That any proceeding instituted by the applicant in this Court may not be continued without leave of the Court. Rule 13.11(3)(a) Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.
(b)The applicant may not institute a proceeding in this Court without prior leave of the Court. Rule 13.11(3)(b) Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.
(c)The Court directs that without the prior leave of the Court the applicant is not to file, and the Registry is not to accept for filing, any further applications to the Court in relation to all allegations of sex, marital status and implied disability discrimination and victimisation, or any other issues the subject of Notices of Termination issued by Karen Toohey, Delegate of the President of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (“HREOC”) on 29 May 2006, (References KMc/2016890FC(D), 2016891FC(S) and 2016893FC(H), and on 6 February 2007 (References KMc/20177525FC(D) and 2017726FC(S) or in relation to any associated matter. Rule 2.06(1)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.
The applicant was invited to make a submission as to whether in her view the orders applied to her in this present application and, if so, whether leave should be granted to continue the proceeding against all or any of the four respondents. The applicant conceded that the orders “probably” did apply to her application against the four respondents and told the court that she did not seek leave to continue against any of them.
Conclusions
I am satisfied that Order 4(a) made by Turner FM in Lawrance v Cth of Aust & Ors and Lawrance v AAT & Ors applies to the present application, which was on foot at the time his Honour made the order. Consequently, the applicant would require leave of the Court to continue her action against all four of the respondents.
The applicant has not sought that leave in respect of any of the respondents.
I have already found that the ninth, twelfth, thirteenth and fifteenth respondents have either not been properly served or have not been served at all (Lawrance v Refugee Review Tribunal & Ors (No 2) at [5]-[7]). The applicant claims that these four respondents have committed unlawful discrimination against her under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) and the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth). She seeks damages and a written apology from each one of them.
Her claim is that during her employment she was imputed with a psychiatric impairment which she did not have and subsequently received services and programmes under Part III of the Disability Services Act 1986 (Cth). She also claims that she was administered involuntary medical treatment without her knowledge.
The applicant claims that these four respondents are in some way responsible for imputing to her a psychiatric impairment that she does not have, the fifteenth respondent, Lyn Rogers, directly and the other three respondents indirectly. She refers in her affidavit to having sat in a bus and observed Ms Rogers, also a passenger in the bus, moving from one seat to another.
The applicant barely mentions Ms Brimson at all in her affidavit evidence. She accuses Ms Christoffanini of “communicating oddly” or “weirdly” and shouting and playing music loudly. The applicant refers to having spoken to Mr Godfrey about her suspicions that she had somehow been placed under surveillance and that an Indonesian woman whom she had once known was in some way responsible for writing on Tribunal files.
Even if the applicant were to effect personal service on these respondents, she would be very unlikely to succeed in her claims against any one of them. I am satisfied that there would be no utility in granting leave to the applicant to continue her claims against any of the ninth, twelfth, thirteenth and fifteenth respondents.
I decline to grant leave to the applicant to proceed. The application will be removed from the list of cases awaiting finalisation. I make no order for costs.
I certify that the preceding fourteen (14) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Scarlett FM
Associate: S.Polley
Date: 21 November 2008
0
2
6