Paramasivam v Grant

[2001] FCA 882

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Paramasivam v Grant [2001] FCA 882

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – summary dismissal

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) s 46P
Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) s 9, s 13

General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways(NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125 referred to
McKellar v Container Terminal Management Services Ltd (1999) 165 ALR 409 referred to
Paramasivam v Wheeler (2001) FCA 231 referred to
Webster v Lampard (1993) 177 CLR 598 referred to

GAJA LAKSHMI PARAMASIVAM v W GRANT AND ANOR

N 238 OF 2001

HELY J
4 JULY 2001
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 238 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

GAJA LAKSHMI PARAMASIVAM
APPLICANT

AND:

W GRANT
FIRST RESPONDENT

B DEBUS
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

HELY J

DATE OF ORDER:

4 JULY 2001

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed with costs.

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	N 238 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

GAJA LAKSHMI PARAMASIVAM
APPLICANT

AND:

W GRANT
FIRST RESPONDENT

B DEBUS
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	HELY J
DATE:	4 JULY 2001
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 10 January 2001 the applicant lodged a written complaint with the Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission (“HREOC”) pursuant to s 46P of the Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 alleging unlawful discrimination on the part of Mr W Grant, the Director-General of the New South Wales Attorney General's Department, and Mr B Debus, the New South Wales Attorney General.

2. In her letter of complaint the applicant appears to assert that the respondents discriminated against her, first, because they delayed in replying to correspondence; second, they failed to provide specific answers to questions which the applicant had asked about the legal system; and third, because they refused to provide the services of the Attorney General or his Department to the applicant because of her race.

3. The respondents’ conduct was said by the applicant to be in breach of s 9 and s 13 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (“RDA”) and of article 5 of the schedule attached to the Act.

4. On 20 February 2001 the President of the Commission, Professor Alice Tay, terminated the complaint pursuant to s 46PH(1)(c) of the Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission Act (“HREOC Act”) on the ground that the complaint was lacking in substance.  On 14 March 2001 an application was made to the court under s 46PO of the HREOC Act alleging unlawful discrimination on the part of the respondents to the terminated complaint.

5. The discrimination of which the applicant complained is described in par 11 of the application alleging unlawful discrimination as follows:

   “My expressions of corporate wisdom were not treated on the same basis as those from others in positions of power.”

6. Paragraph 11(a) identified the RDA and in particular s 9, s 13(b), and article 5(a),…