Matthews v Hargreaves (No.2) - [2010] FMCA 933

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MATTHEWS v HARGREAVES (No.2)

[2010] FMCA 933

HUMAN RIGHTS – Alleged discrimination – disability and criminal record – criminal record jurisdiction – other appropriate remedy – inquiry not continued by Australian Human Rights Commission – no jurisdiction for Court to consider complaint.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Joinder of applications – same parties – same discrimination and conduct alleged – dismissal of part of application for want of jurisdiction.

Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986, ss.32(3)(c)(iv), 46PH(1)(i), 46PO(1)
Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth), s.45(1)

Goodall v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2007] FMCA 218
Hobson v BWL Pty Ltd [2010] FMCA 722
Matthews v Hargreaves [2010] FMCA 840

Applicant:

KELVIN JOHN MATTHEWS

Respondent:

TIMOTHY WYNN HARGREAVES

File Numbers:

PEG 144 of 2010

PEG 168 of 2010

Judgment of:

Lucev FM

Hearing date:

29 November 2010

Date of Last Submission:

29 November 2010

Delivered at:

Perth

Delivered on:

29 November 2010

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant:

In person (by telephone link)

The Respondent:

In person (by telephone link)

ORDERS

That part of the applicant’s application in PEG 168 of 2010 under s.46PO(1) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) related to alleged discrimination on the basis of criminal record is dismissed.
The applicant file electronically and serve by registered post any affidavits, including all documents, to be relied upon at hearing by 17 January 2011.
The respondent file electronically and serve by registered post any affidavits, including all documents, to be relied upon at hearing by 28 February 2011.
The matter be referred to mediation before a Registrar of this Court, that mediation to occur on or before 28 March 2011, with leave to the parties to initially appear at the mediation by telephone.
In the event that mediation is unsuccessful:
(a)the applicant is to file electronically and serve by registered post:
(i)any further affidavits and documents upon which he intends to rely at hearing; and
(ii)an outline of submissions,
by 26 April 2011;
(b)the respondent is to file electronically and serve by registered post:
(i)any further affidavits and documents upon which he intends to rely at hearing; and
(ii)an outline of submissions,
by 24 May 2011; and
(c)the matter be listed for hearing at 10:15am on 14 and 15 June 2011, in Perth, with both parties required to attend in person.
The costs of today be reserved.
The application in PEG168/2010 be joined with the application in PEG144/2010, with all future papers to be filed in PEG144/2010.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT PERTH

PEG 144 of 2010 & PEG 168 of 2010

KELVIN JOHN MATTHEWS

Applicant

And

TIMOTHY WYNN HARGREAVES

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Ex tempore reasons revised and edited from the transcript)

Introduction – Mr Hargreaves’ queries

This Court exercises the judicial power of the Commonwealth. It does not provide advice to litigants. That is the role of barristers and solicitors.
Self-represented litigants stand in a slightly different position and may be given appropriate procedural direction by the Court. In that respect the Court…

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 Matthews v Hargreaves (No.2) 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: [2010] FMCA 933
Decision Date: 29 November 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Matthews v Hargreaves (No. 2) involved the applicant alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and criminal record, with the matter being brought before the court under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth). The applicant, Matthews, claimed that the respondent, Hargreaves, discriminated against them due to their disability and criminal record in employment matters. The Australian Human Rights Commission had declined to continue with the inquiry, leaving Matthews to pursue the matter in court.

The court was tasked with determining whether it had jurisdiction to hear the applicant's complaint regarding discrimination based on criminal record, given that the Commission had declined to proceed. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the application should be joined with another application (PEG144/2010) that involved the same parties and alleged similar discrimination and conduct. The court also had to decide on the procedural steps to be taken, including document filing and service timelines, as well as the scheduling of mediation and potential hearing dates.

The court found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaint related to discrimination based on criminal record since the Australian Human Rights Commission had declined to continue with the inquiry and no other appropriate remedy was available. The court also dismissed part of the application for want of jurisdiction, and ordered that the applications be joined, with all future papers to be filed in the PEG144/2010 application. The court set out detailed procedural orders regarding the filing and service of affidavits and documents, the scheduling of mediation, and the potential hearing dates if mediation was unsuccessful.

The court made several orders to manage the proceedings, including dismissing part of the application for lack of jurisdiction, joining the applications, and setting specific timelines for document filing and service. If mediation was unsuccessful, the matter was to be listed for a hearing on specified dates in June 2011, with both parties required to attend in person. The costs of the proceedings were reserved, and the court directed that all future papers be filed in the PEG144/2010 application.

Orders

Orders of the court

That part of the applicant’s application in PEG 168 of 2010 under s.46PO(1) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) related to alleged discrimination on the basis of criminal record is dismissed.

The applicant file electronically and serve by registered post any affidavits, including all documents, to be relied upon at hearing by 17 January 2011.

The respondent file electronically and serve by registered post any affidavits, including all documents, to be relied upon at hearing by 28 February 2011.

The matter be referred to mediation before a Registrar of this Court, that mediation to occur on or before 28 March 2011, with leave to the parties to initially appear at the mediation by telephone.

In the event that mediation is unsuccessful:

(a) the applicant is to file electronically and serve by registered post:

(i) any further affidavits and documents upon which he intends to rely at hearing; and

(ii) an outline of submissions,

by 26 April 2011;

(b) the respondent is to file electronically and serve by registered post:

(i) any further affidavits and documents upon which he intends to rely at hearing; and

(ii) an outline of submissions,

by 24 May 2011; and

(c) the matter be listed for hearing at 10:15am on 14 and 15 June 2011, in Perth, with both parties required to attend in person.

The costs of today be reserved.

The application in PEG168/2010 be joined with the application in PEG144/2010, with all future papers to be filed in PEG144/2010.

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.