Miller v Wertheim & Anor

Case [2001] FMCA 103

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MILLER v WERTHEIM & ANOR. [2001] FMCA 103

HUMAN RIGHTS – racial discrimination – alleged vilification of Jews in speech by first respondent – whether religious differences within the Jewish community can support a racial discrimination complaint.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE -  summary dismissal of application.

Federal Magistrates Act (1999) (Cth)

Federal Magistrates Court Rules

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth), s.46PO
Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), ss. 9(1); (1A)(a), (b), (c); 17(a), (b); 18C(1)(a), (b); 18C(2)(a), (b), (c)
Race Relations Act 1971 (NZ)

Attorney-General v Wentworth (1988) 14 NSWLR 481
Charles v Fuji Xerox Australia Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1531
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Inglis (1974) 131 CLR 311
Ealing London Borough Council v Race Relations Board [1972] AC 342
Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1963) 154 CLR 87
Goldberg v G Korsunski Carmel School (2000) EOC ¶93-074
King-Ansell v Police [1979] 2 NZLR 531
Travers v State of New South Wales [2000] FCA 1565
Webster v Lampard (1993) 177 CLR 598
Yo Han Chung v University of Sydney [2001] FMCA 94

Applicant: ELIANA FREYDEL MILLER

First Respondent:

Second Respondent:

PETER WERTHEIM

STEPHEN ROTHMAN
File No: SZ403 of 2001
Delivered on: 22 October 2001 (ex tempore)
Delivered at: Sydney
Hearing Date: 22 October 2001
Judgment of: Driver FM

REPRESENTATION

Applicant in Person
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr R Reitano
Solicitors for the Respondent: Geoffrey Edwards & Co

ORDERS

  1. Pursuant to Rule 13.10(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules, the Applicant’s application to this Court is dismissed generally.

  1. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs of the application including any reserved costs.

  1. Pursuant to Rule 21.02(2) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules, the amount of costs are set as the amount payable for a stage 2 proceeding under Schedule 1 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.

THE COURT CERTIFIES THAT:

  1. Pursuant to Rule 21.15 it was reasonable for the respondent to employ an advocate at the hearing held on 22 October 2001.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SZ403 of 2001

ELIANA FREYDEL MILLER

Applicant

And

PETER WERTHEIM

First Respondent

STEPHEN ROTHMAN

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Background

  1. On 11 May 2001 the President of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (“HREOC”) terminated a complaint dated 4 February 2001 made by Ms Eliana Miller (“Ms Miller”) against Mr Peter Wertheim and Mr Stephen Rothman. In consequence of that termination Ms Miller filed an application in the Federal Court on 7 June 2001 alleging unlawful discrimination pursuant to s.46PO of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) (“the HREOC Act”). The respondents to that application were Mr Wertheim and Mr Rothman as well as the entire New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies. On 30 August 2001 Ms Miller filed an amended application in this Court in which she deleted the Jewish Board of Deputies as a respondent. Ms Miller did so following a directions hearing at which I pointed out that as the Jewish Board…

Continue reading Miller v Wertheim & Anor

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Miller v Wertheim & Anor [2001] FMCA 103
Case
[2001] FMCA 103
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Miller v Wertheim & Anor is a case where the Applicant sought relief from the Federal Magistrates Court, with the primary dispute being over a matter that is not explicitly detailed in the summary. The Respondents were Wertheim and another party, whose specific roles or positions in relation to the dispute are not outlined. The court was tasked with making a decision on the application made by the Applicant, which resulted in a dismissal of the application. The court also ordered that the Applicant pay the Respondents' costs associated with the application, including any reserved costs. Furthermore, the costs were quantified in accordance with the rules for a stage 2 proceeding under the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.

The legal issues before the court centred around the validity and merits of the Applicant's application. The court had to determine whether the application had sufficient grounds to warrant any form of relief and whether the Applicant had followed the appropriate procedural steps. Additionally, the court considered the appropriate costs to be awarded to the Respondents in light of the dismissal of the application.

In its reasoning, the court found that the Applicant's application did not meet the necessary criteria for relief, leading to the dismissal. The court also concluded that the Respondents had a reasonable basis for employing an advocate at the hearing. As a result, the Applicant was ordered to pay the Respondents' costs, which were set according to the rules for a stage 2 proceeding. The court certified that the Respondents' employment of an advocate was reasonable under the circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

Pursuant to Rule 13.10(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules, the Applicant’s application to this Court is dismissed generally.

2.

The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs of the application including any reserved costs.

3.

Pursuant to Rule 21.02(2) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules, the amount of costs are set as the amount payable for a stage 2 proceeding under Schedule 1 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.

THE COURT CERTIFIES THAT:

1.

Pursuant to Rule 21.15 it was reasonable for the respondent to employ an advocate at the hearing held on 22 October 2001.

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.