Lynch, T. v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission

[1991] FCA 932

JUDGMENT No. .. 2.?&. .l .q..! ....

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

)

FEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. NG 170 of 1991

1

DNERAL DIVISION 1

On appeal from the Administrative

Appeals Tribunal

BETWEEN: THERESA LYNCH

Applicant

AND HUMAN RIGHTS AND EOUAL DPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Respondent

Morling J. 16 August 1991

REASONS FOR DECISION

This is an appeal from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal constituted by Deputy President Bannon, Q.C. The application before the learned Deputy President sought review of a decision made pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act 1982 by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission that the appellant be not

granted access to certain documents. The nature of '-.he

/

documents are set out in Mr Bannon's reasons for decision, as are the reasons which were advanced by the respondent in support of them not being made available to the applicant.

In her notice of appeal the applicant has raised a number cf grounds most of which are based upon a contention that she was denied natural justice by Mr Ba

mention the other grounds later.

2 6 NOV 1992
FEDERAL COURT 0'

AUSTRALIA

PRINCIPAL REOISTO'

It is not in doubt that the learned Deputy
President was obliged to observe the rules of natural
justice in dealing with the matter before him. I have

carefully read the material which was before Mr Bannon and the transcript of the proceedings before him. 1n my opinion there is no substance in the claim that he denied the applicant natural justice.

I need not refer to all the grounds of appeal which have been raised by the applicant. The wording of

some of the grounds is difficult to follow. I do not criticise MS Lynch for this because she has conducted this appeal on her own without legal assistance and she has done the best that she can. However I have carefully tried to follow her grounds of appeal and have gone to the pages in the transcript to which she has taken me in an effort to identify the particular respects in which Mr Bannon is alleged to have denied her natural justice. No good point would be served by me referring to the pages in the transcript to which I have been referred because, having carefully read them, I can see no basis whatever for the

claim that the applicant was denied natural justice. I

shall, however, mention one or two particular matters relied
on by MS Lynch.

She complained that Mr Bannon might not have had regard to the contents of an affidavit sworn by her. I think it is plain that Mr Bannon did read the affidavit. He said he would rule on some matters of admissibility later

but there is no indication in the transcript or in Mr Bannon's reasons that he excluded any of the contents of the affidavit. In any event I should say that the contents of the affidavit appear to me to be substantially irrelevant to the issues which were under consideration.

Another complaint which was made was that Mr Bannon had regard to some material tendered by one of the respondents to the application. The material consisted of certain documents filed in three sets of proceedings in the District Court. Mr Bannon made it plain in his reasons that he thought this material was irrelevant and he paid no regard to it. That was what MS Lynch asked him to do. In other words he adopted a view favourable to MS Lynch in respect of this material.

I have carefully listened this morning to the other matters which Me Lynch has put to me. They do not justify a finding that she was denied natural justice in the hearing before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

There are one or two other matters referred to in the notice of appeal. One was an alleged irregularity in	the signature on an affidavit by Mr Brooker. The
irregularity, if it was indeed such, in the swearing of the affidavit could not possibly have amounted to a denial of natural justice. Nor could the alleged irregularity give rise to such an error of law as would justify the intervention of this Court.
A final ground of appeal seems to raise a question whether there was evidence, or sufficient evidence, to support the decision. I think that the material before Mr Bannon justified him in concluding that the decision of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to deny access to the relevant documents to HE Lynch was properly made.

In all the circumstances, I think the appeal must

be dismissed.

This is a particularly sad case. The material in

the appeal book seems to indicate that Me Lynch is well regarded by people at St Vincents Hospital where she formerly worked. I make this observation in the hope that

Me Lynch will be satisfied that her quest to see the

documents to which she has been denied is not really worth

pursuing.

The appeal is dismissed with costs.

I certify that this and the preceding three (3) pages are

Honour I4r Juetice T.R. Morling.	a true copy of the Oral Reaaona for Declsion herein of hie
Aaaociate: 0.5 ' &S&--
Date:  (6.3.91