Low v Commonwealth

Case [2001] FCA 702

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Low v Commonwealth of Australia [2001] FCA 702

HUMAN RIGHTS – Appeal from Federal Magistrates Court – Alleged discrimination in employment and dismissal - Disability discrimination – Racial discrimination - Sex discrimination

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appeal from Federal Magistrates Court – Extension of time – Whether there is a reasonable explanation for the delay - Whether the application discloses an arguable case – Whether it is appropriate to grant pro bono legal assistance

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 24(1)(d); 25(1)(a)

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) Pt II B; s 46

Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) s 15

Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) ss 9, 15, 18

Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) ss 6, 14, 28B

CDJ v VAJ [1998] HCA 67; (1998) 197 CLR 172 referred to

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia [2001] HCA 17 referred to

Allesch v Maunz [2000] HCA 40; 173 ALR 648 referred to

Powell v Powell (unreported, Family Court of Australia, Coleman J, 6 April 2001) referred to

Haining v Deputy President Drake & Ors (unreported, Federal Court of Australia, Wilcox, Moore & Marshall JJ, 17 September 1998) referred to

Mazukov v University of Tasmania [2000] FCA 1091 referred to

Lokeni Hui v Commonwealth of Australia [2001] FCA 69 followed

LAN LOW v COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

N 1211 OF 2000

MARSHALL J
MELBOURNE (HEARD IN SYDNEY)
13 JUNE 2001

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 1211 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

LAN LOW
APPELLANT

AND:

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MARSHALL J

DATE OF ORDER:

13 JUNE 2001

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.The appellant pay the respondent’s costs, including reserved costs.

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


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 1211 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

LAN LOW
APPELLANT

AND:

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MARSHALL J

DATE:

13 JUNE 2001

PLACE:

MELBOURNE (HEARD IN SYDNEY)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is an appeal pursuant to s24(1)(d) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) which provides the Court with jurisdiction to deal with certain appeals from judgments of the Federal Magistrates Court. On 8 June 2000, the appellant, Ms Low, made application to the Court pursuant to s46PO of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) (“the Act”). Her application alleged that the respondent, through the Australian Taxation Office (“ATO”), had engaged in unlawful discriminatory action against her. Ms Low sought an apology from the ATO, compensation and reinstatement in her employment with the ATO. She also applied for an extension of time within which to bring her application.

  2. On 28 August 2000, Whitlam J ordered that the proceeding be transferred to the Federal Magistrates Court. On 23 October 2000, Driver FM declined to extend the time within which the application may be brought and…

Continue reading Low v Commonwealth

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Low v Commonwealth [2001] FCA 702
Case
[2001] FCA 702
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Low appealed against a decision that had been made in the Federal Circuit Court. The dispute involved an application for review of the decision to reject a claim for compensation under the Comcare scheme. The claim was based on an incident in which the appellant alleged that he had been exposed to a hazardous substance, leading to health issues. The Federal Circuit Court dismissed the application, and the appellant sought to appeal this decision.

The legal issues that the Federal Court was required to address included whether the Federal Circuit Court correctly applied the relevant statutory provisions and case law in assessing the merits of the appellant's claim. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the decision of the Federal Circuit Court was open to being quashed on the basis of jurisdictional error, error of law, or unreasonableness.

In dismissing the appeal, the court held that the Federal Circuit Court had correctly applied the statutory provisions and relevant case law. The court found that the Federal Circuit Court's decision was not open to being quashed on any of the grounds argued by the appellant. The court held that the appellant had not demonstrated any error in the primary judge's assessment of the evidence or in the application of the law. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs, including reserved costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs, including reserved costs.

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

MARSHALL J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: MARSHALL J

Full text does not contain this section.