Nagasinghe, L. v T a Worthington QC

In the matter of Nagasinghe, L. versus T a Worthington QC, the Federal Court was tasked with examining the legality of the decision made by an Inquiry Commissioner to summarily dismiss a complaint lodged by the applicant under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. The complaint, submitted by Dr. Nagasinghe, was related to her alleged failure to secure a position as a Senior Visiting Dentist at a specific Medical Centre, with her contention being that her race was a factor in this outcome. The respondent, represented by Mr. Worthington QC, argued against the validity of the complaint, leading to the Inquiry Commissioner's decision to dismiss it without further investigation.

The court was required to determine two primary legal issues. First, whether any evidence presented to the Inquiry Commissioner suggested a genuine possibility that the applicant's race, colour, or national or ethnic origin played a role in her non-appointment. Second, whether the Commissioner's refusal to order the production of certain documents, deemed irrelevant, constituted a breach of the principles of natural justice. The applicant argued that the refusal to consider these documents was a denial of her right to a fair hearing.

The court found that there was no material before the Inquiry Commissioner that indicated a real possibility of racial discrimination, as the reasons given for not appointing Dr. Nagasinghe were unrelated to her race. Furthermore, the court concluded that the Inquiry Commissioner did not act in a way that breached natural justice by declining to order the production of documents that had been deemed irrelevant. The court held that the Commissioner's decision was within their jurisdiction and was not unreasonable.

Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the second respondent. This decision underscores the stringent requirements for proving racial discrimination and the court's deference to the discretion of administrative decision-makers, provided that their actions are not arbitrary or unreasonable.