Nalbandian v Commonwealth of Australia

The applicant, Mr Nalbandian, sought to appeal decisions of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia concerning the binding nature of a Deed of Release entered into with the Commonwealth of Australia. The Deed was executed following a conciliation process under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth). The primary issues in the appeal were whether the applicant was under a special disability or economic duress at the time he executed the Deed, and whether he was a false witness who was willing to manufacture evidence. Additionally, the court considered whether an order for costs under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) was appropriate given the institution and conduct of the proceedings.

The Federal Circuit Court held that the applicant's claims concerning special disability and economic duress were unfounded. The court found that it was open to the primary judge to conclude that the applicant was not a credible witness and that he grossly exaggerated his state of mind. The appellate court observed that the primary judge had before him the evidence forming the basis for the chronology of events, as well as the applicant's cross-examination. Given these matters, the court found no basis to conclude that the primary judge's findings were "glaringly improbable." Furthermore, the court found that the applicant's case concerning the costs order was not substantiated. The court held that the applicant's proceedings were vexatious and without reasonable cause.

The appeal was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs. The court found that the primary judge's orders were dispositive of the substantive rights of the parties and, therefore, leave to appeal was unnecessary. The appellate court considered the appeal on its merits and found no merit in the grounds of appeal. The court concluded that the applicant's claims were not supported by the evidence and that the primary judge's findings were properly open to him. The appeal was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.