Lovejoy v Myer Stores Ltd

In the case of Lovejoy v Myer Stores Ltd, the appellant, Lovejoy, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal. The primary dispute centred on whether the Tribunal's decision contravened the Equal Opportunity Acts of 1984 and 1995. Lovejoy argued that the Tribunal had erred in its interpretation of the law and its application of facts, leading to an unjust outcome. Myer Stores Ltd, the respondent, defended the Tribunal's decision, asserting that the findings were legally sound and based on the evidence presented.

The court was required to determine whether Lovejoy's application for judicial review, filed under Order 56, was permissible given the statutory time limits for appeals. The specific issue was whether the court could entertain an application for an extension of time to bring additional grounds of review beyond the statutory period, particularly in light of the appeal provisions set out in the Equal Opportunity Act 1995. This issue had precedent in the earlier case of Waters & Ors v Public Transport Corporation, where the High Court had provided obiter dicta suggesting that the appeal provisions precluded the Supreme Court from exercising jurisdiction to hear an application for judicial review under Order 56 after the appeal period had lapsed.

The court found that the appeal provision in the 1995 Act had the effect of limiting the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to hear judicial review applications after the appeal period had expired. The court followed the obiter dicta from the High Court in Waters, which held that such a decision could only be challenged on a question of law by appeal and not by judicial review under Order 56. Consequently, the court dismissed Lovejoy's application for judicial review, finding that it was beyond the court's jurisdiction to entertain it due to the lapsed time for appeal.