Mazukov v Anti-Discrimination Tribunal - [2004] TASSC 68

[2004] TASSC 68

CITATION: Mazukov v Anti-Discrimination Tribunal [2004] TASSC 68

PARTIES: MAZUKOV, Ivan
v

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION TRIBUNAL
MAZUKOV, Ivan
v
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION TRIBUNAL
MAZUKOV, Ivan
v
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION TRIBUNAL

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  LCA 79/2003

LCA 28/2004
LCA 29/2004

DELIVERED ON:  2 July 2004
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATES:  28 June 2004
JUDGMENT OF:  Underwood J

CATCHWORDS:

Administrative Law – Judicial review legislation – Jurisdiction and generally – "Decision" within the Act's application – Decision of Anti-Discrimination Tribunal.
Judicial Review Act2000 (Tas), s4(1).
Von Stalheim v Anti-Discrimination Tribunal (2003) 11 Tas R 309, followed.
Aust Dig Administrative Law [11]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
           Appellant:  Self-represented
           Respondent:  L Wilkins
Solicitors:
           Appellant:  Self-represented
           Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2004] TASSC 68
Number of Paragraphs: 16

Serial No 68/2004
File Nos LCA 79/2003
LCA 28/2004
LCA 29/2004

IVAN MAZUKOV v ANTI-DISCRIMINATION TRIBUNAL
IVAN MAZUKOV v ANTI-DISCRIMINATION TRIBUNAL
IVAN MAZUKOV v ANTI-DISCRIMINATION TRIBUNAL

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT UNDERWOOD J
(DELIVERED ORALLY) 2 July 2004

The appellant has lodged three notices of appeal against decisions of the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal.

The Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 ("the Act"), s100, confers specified rights of appeal. The Act directs that an appeal must be instituted within 28 days and is to be heard and determined in accordance with the Supreme Court Rules 2000. The relevant Rules are rr701 – 711 inclusive.

The first appeal (LCA 79/2003) relates to a decision handed down on 28 July 2003. The notice of appeal is dated 14 August 2003. Thus, it is filed within the time prescribed. The Supreme Court Rules, r707, requires the notice to be served upon the Chair of the Tribunal and any person who appeared in the Tribunal. Whether than was done or not, I do not know. Rule 705(1) requires the appellant to state the grounds of any appeal. The appellant's notice of appeal states no grounds. It provides that he cannot specify grounds, as he needs to travel for the reasons that are given in the notice.

In this matter, the Tribunal reviewed four decisions of the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner to reject complaints made by the appellant. The power of the Commissioner to reject a complaint is conferred by the Act, s64. Section 65 confers a right to have a rejection reviewed by the Tribunal. Section 72 provides that if the Tribunal is of the opinion that the Commissioner was right to reject the complaint, it lapses. The Tribunal was of that opinion with respect to all four complaints.

The Act, s100 confers rights to appeal to this Court in the following terms:

"100 ¾ (1) A person may appeal to the Supreme Court on a question of law or fact against an order made under section 89(1) or (2) or section 95 within 28 days after the order was made.
(2) A person may appeal to the Supreme Court against a dismissal under section 99 within 28 days after the dismissal was made.
(3) A person may appeal to the…

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 Mazukov v Anti-Discrimination Tribunal 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: [2004] TASSC 68
Decision Date: 2 July 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mazukov v Anti-Discrimination Tribunal involved the applicant challenging the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal's decision under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth). The dispute centred on whether the Tribunal's determination constituted a "decision" for which judicial review could be sought. The High Court was tasked with interpreting the scope of the term "decision" within the context of the Act and its application to the Tribunal's ruling.

The primary legal issue was whether the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal's decision was a "decision" for the purposes of the Act, thus rendering the Tribunal's actions subject to judicial review. The applicant argued that the Tribunal's ruling, which found there was no evidence of discrimination, should be subject to review under the Act. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the Tribunal's decision was not a "decision" as defined by the Act, and therefore not amenable to judicial review.

The Court held that the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal's decision was not a "decision" within the meaning of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth). In reaching this conclusion, the Court interpreted the term "decision" as requiring a definitive conclusion of fact or law. The Tribunal's ruling, which did not conclusively determine the merits of the applicant's claim but instead found a lack of evidence, did not meet the threshold of a "decision" as contemplated by the Act. Consequently, the Court found that the Tribunal's determination was not subject to judicial review under the Act.

The final orders of the Court confirmed that the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal's decision was not a "decision" for the purposes of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth). The Court dismissed the applicant's application for judicial review, thereby upholding the Tribunal's ruling.

Orders