Appeal Panel
CITATION: Moxon -v- Westbus Pty Limited (EOD) [2000] NSWADTAP 12 PARTIES: APPELLANT
RESPONDENT
John Moxon
Westbus Pty LimitedFILE NUMBER: 999027 HEARING DATES: 20/04/2000 SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 04/20/2000 DATE OF DECISION:
07/25/2000DECISION UNDER APPEAL:
Principal matterBEFORE: Hennessy N (Deputy President); Rice S - Judicial Member; Bullock S - Member CATCHWORDS: adequacy of reasons - no evidence - relevant/irrelevant considerations - statutory interpretation MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter FILE NUMBER UNDER APPEAL: 981001 DATE OF DECISION UNDER APPEAL: 09/21/1999 LEGISLATION CITED: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 CASES CITED: Francey & Meeuwissen v Hilton Hotels of Australia Pty Ltd (1977) EOC 92-903
Cooper v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission [1999] FCA 180
Scott and Disabled Peoples International v Telstra Corporation Limited (1995) EOC
Francey & Ors v Hilton Hotels of Australia Ltd [1997] HREOCA 56
Scott and Bernadette Finney v The Hills Grammar School [1999] HREOCA 14
Hills Grammar School v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [2000] FCA 65
Rees v Australian Agency for International Development [1999] HREOCA 12
Druett v State of New South Wales
Dennis Willcox Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1988) 79 ALR 267
Sullivan v. Department of Transport (1978) 20 ALR 323
Pettitt v. Dunkley (1971) 1 NSWLR 376
The Queen v Toohey; Ex parte Meneling Station Pty Ltd (1982) 158 CLR
Tobacco Institute of Australia Ltd & Ors v National Health & Medical Research Council & Ors (1996) 71 FCR
Department of Defence v Jodette Margaret Fox [1997] 3 FCA
Absolon v NSW TAFE [1999] NSWCA 311
Public Service Board of New South Wales v. Osmond (1985-1986) 159 CLR
Soulemezis v. Dudley (Holdings) Pty. Limited (1987) 10 NSWLR 247
R. v. Associated Northern Collieries (1910) 11 CLR 738
Repatriation Commission v. O'Brien (1984-1985) 155 CLR
Repatriation Commission v Norman Kenneth Boyle [1997] 1269 FCA
Haswell v Department of School Education [1999] NSWSC 1271
Waters v Public Transport Corporation 1991 EOCREPRESENTATION: APPELLANT
J Griffiths, barrister
RESPONDENT
C Ronalds, barristerORDERS: 1. The appeal is upheld ; 2. The decision of the Tribunal made on 21 September 1999, that Westbus has made out the defence of unjustifiable hardship under s 49M(2) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, is set aside ; 3. This aspect of the case is remitted to be heard and decided again by the Tribunal as originally or similarly constituted ; 4. No order as to costs.
Introduction
1 This is an appeal by Mr Moxon from a decision of the Equal Opportunity Division of the Tribunal made on 21 September 1999. The Tribunal’s decision was that Mr Moxon’s complaint of disability discrimination against Westbus Pty Limited (Westbus) be dismissed.
- History of the proceedings
2 On 5 April 1997 Mr Moxon, who is President of the Physical Disability Council of New South Wales, lodged a complaint with the Anti-Discrimination Board. Mr Moxon uses a wheel chair. He lives in Winston Hills where Westbus is the only supplier of public transport. His complaint relates to bus routes 600, 606 and 607. Mr…
Continue reading Moxon v Westbus Pty Limited (EOD)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Moxon v Westbus Pty Limited (EOD) [2000] NSWADTAP 12
- Case
- [2000] NSWADTAP 12
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the Tribunal had provided adequate reasons for its decision, if there was any evidence to support the decision, and whether the Tribunal had considered relevant and irrelevant factors in its reasoning. The court was also tasked with determining if the Tribunal had correctly interpreted the statutory provisions and applied them appropriately in the circumstances of the case.
The court found that the Tribunal had not provided sufficient reasons for its decision, which was a fundamental requirement for any administrative decision-making process. The court further determined that there was no evidence to support the Tribunal's conclusion that Westbus had made out the defence of unjustifiable hardship. Additionally, the court found that the Tribunal had considered irrelevant factors in its reasoning and had failed to consider relevant factors. Consequently, the court held that the decision of the Tribunal was flawed and set it aside. The appeal was upheld, and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration and re-determination. No order was made regarding costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal is upheld ; 2. The decision of the Tribunal made on 21 September 1999, that Westbus has made out the defence of unjustifiable hardship under s 49M(2) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, is set aside ; 3. This aspect of the case is remitted to be heard and decided again by the Tribunal as originally or similarly constituted ; 4. No order as to costs.
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.