Mathews, R.G.H. v Sheedy, J. - [1993] FCA 234

Re: RUSSELL GORDON HAIG MATHEWS
And: JOAN SHEEDY; HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION; QUENTIN BRYCE
and CHRIS SIDOTI
No. QG43 of 1991
FED No. 234
Number of pages - 18
Administrative Law
(1993) 33 ALD 750 (extract)

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Spender J(1)

CATCHWORDS

Administrative Law - judicial review - decision of Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission - discrimination on the ground of sex - determination that complaint of sexual harassment in employment substantiated - decision amenable to review - no error of law on grounds of taking irrelevant considerations into account or failing to take a relevant consideration into account - no error of law in making of confidentiality order - ordinarily inquiries should be conducted in public - allegation of improper or fraudulent exercise of power of Commission - alterations made, with complainant's agreement, to original handwritten letter of complaint in typed copy sent to applicant - no change in intent or impact - importance of perception of impartiality and objectivity - whether decision involved breach of the rules of natural justice - inference that Commissioner was approached by the Commission in the absence of the applicant - Commissioner's obligation to act fairly - not reasonably to be apprehended that Commissioner did not bring to the determination of the complaint an impartial and objective mind.

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977

Sex Discrimination Act 1984-1991 ss. 57, 59, 66, 67, 77, 81 and 82

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v. Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321

Hall v. Sheiban Pty Ltd (1989) 20 FCR 217

Koppen v. Commissioner for Community Relations (1986) 11 FCR 360

Murphy v. Ramus Pty Ltd (No. 2) (1990) EOC 92-309

HEARING

BRISBANE, 28-30 April 1992

#DATE 21:4:1993

The applicant appeared in person.

Counsel for the respondents: Mrs P. M. Wolfe
instructed by: Human Rights Commission

ORDER

The Court orders that:

1. The application for order of review against the second, third and fourth respondents is dismissed.

2. There be no order as to costs.

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

JUDGE1

SPENDER J This is an amended application by Russell Gordon Haig Mathews (Mr Mathews) seeking, amongst other things, an order for review of a decision that "a complaint of sexual harassment made by one Jo-Anne Barker against (Mr Mathews) was substantiated, made by Commissioner Mr K O'Connor of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in his REASONS FOR DECISION, dated 7 March 1991".

The amended application was filed on 3 June 1991 and an amended statement of claim was filed on the same day.
On 8 July 1991 I dismissed the application against the first respondent with costs, including reserved costs, for the reasons which I then gave. On the same day I made orders striking out a number of paragraphs of the amended application. The third respondent was the Sex Discrimination Commissioner appointed under s. 96 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984…

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 Mathews, R.G.H. v Sheedy, J. 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: [1993] FCA 234
Decision Date: 21 APRIL 1993

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a dispute between Mathews and Sheedy, with additional respondents being the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and two of its members. The dispute centred on a decision by the Commission that found a complaint of sexual harassment in employment to be substantiated. Mathews sought judicial review of the Commission's decision, arguing that there were errors in the process that led to the decision.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Commission had made any errors of law, including taking irrelevant considerations into account or failing to take relevant considerations into account, and whether the process by which the decision was made breached the rules of natural justice. In particular, Mathews alleged that there had been alterations to a letter of complaint without his knowledge, which he argued affected the impartiality and objectivity of the process.

The court found that there was no error of law in the Commission's decision-making process. The court noted that the Commission had a discretion to conduct inquiries in private, and that the changes made to the letter of complaint did not alter its intent or impact. The court held that there was no reasonable apprehension that the Commissioner did not bring an impartial and objective mind to the determination of the complaint. Accordingly, the application for judicial review was dismissed.

The court made orders dismissing the application for review against the second, third and fourth respondents, and made no order as to costs. The settlement and entry of orders were dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court orders that:

1. The application for order of review against the second, third and fourth respondents is dismissed.

2. There be no order as to costs.

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

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.