Ozluk v Australian Turkish and Kurdish Community Services Co-operative Ltd

[2008] FCA 352

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Ozluk v Australian Turkish and Kurdish Community Services Co-operative Ltd [2008] FCA 352

NILGUN OZLUK v AUSTRALIAN TURKISH AND KURDISH COMMUNITY SERVICES CO-OPERATIVE LTD

NSD 2077 OF 2007

GRAHAM J

3 MARCH 2008

SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 2077 OF 2007

BETWEEN:	NILGUN OZLUK Applicant
AND:	AUSTRALIAN TURKISH AND KURDISH COMMUNITY SERVICES CO-OPERATIVE LTD Respondent

JUDGE:	GRAHAM J
DATE OF ORDER:	3 MARCH 2008
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Federal Court proceedings number 2077 of 2007 be transferred to the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia.

2.The costs of the proceedings to date be costs in the transferred proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia.

3.The costs associated with the non-attendance of the applicant at 9.30am today, when the matter was called, be the respondent’s costs in the proceedings.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 2077 OF 2007

BETWEEN:	NILGUN OZLUK Applicant
AND:	AUSTRALIAN TURKISH AND KURDISH COMMUNITY SERVICES CO-OPERATIVE LTD Respondent

JUDGE:	GRAHAM J
DATE:	3 MARCH 2008
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The matter before the Court is an application brought pursuant to s 46PO of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) following the termination by the President of the Commission of a complaint lodged by the applicant with the Commission asserting that she was aggrieved by alleged unlawful discrimination by the respondent, Australian Turkish and Kurdish Community Services Co-Operative Limited.

2. The matter is one which strikes me as being appropriate for consideration and determination at first instance in the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia (‘Federal Magistrates Court’).  Mr Merewether, solicitor, who appears as the Sydney agent for the respondent’s solicitor, Martin Bullock Lawyers, has applied for the matter to be transferred to the Federal Magistrates Court.

3. Whilst there has not been a formal Notice of Motion filed, it is within the Court’s power to dispense with compliance with Order 82 rule 5 of the Federal Court Rules (‘the Rules’) in that regard and in any event the Court has a power to transfer a proceeding of its own motion in accordance with Order 82 rule 6 of the Rules. The Court’s power to transfer proceedings to the Federal Magistrates Court is dealt with in s 32AB of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (‘the Act’). A series of matters which the Court is required to take into account are referred to, or are mentioned, in s 32AB(6) of the Act. Factors to be considered by the Court under the Rules are set out in Order 82 rule 7.

4. It does not seem to me that the proceeding is likely to involve questions of general importance.  In my opinion it is likely that the proceeding will be heard and determined at less cost and more convenience to the parties if the proceeding is transferred to the Federal Magistrates Court and it is likely to be heard and determined earlier in the Federal Magistrates Court than in this Court.  Having regard to the wishes of the respondent and, if I may say so without being disrespectful, the indifference of the applicant to the venue, it seems to me that an order for transferral should be made.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Graham.

Associate:

Dated:        17 March 2008

The Applicant appeared in person.
Solicitor for the Respondent:	J F Merewether of Merewether & Co as Sydney agent for Martin Bullock Lawyers
Date of Hearing:	3 March 2008
Date of Judgment:	3 March 2008