Paramasivam v Juraszek

[2002] FCAFC 141

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Paramasivam v Juraszek [2002] FCAFC 141

GAJA LAKSHMI PARAMASIVAM v MILENA JURASZEK

N 1009 of 2001

O’LOUGHLIN, WHITLAM and MARSHALL JJ
21 MAY 2002
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 1009 of 2001

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	GAJA LAKSHMI PARAMASIVAM APPELLANT
AND:	MILENA JURASZEK RESPONDENT
JUDGES:	O'LOUGHLIN, WHITLAM and MARSHALL JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	21 MAY 2002
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The appeal is dismissed.

2.The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs (including the costs of her motion, notice of which was filed on 27 July 2001).

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 1009 of 2001

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	GAJA LAKSHMI PARAMASIVAM APPELLANT
AND:	MILENA JURASZEK RESPONDENT

JUDGES:	O'LOUGHLIN, WHITLAM and MARSHALL JJ
DATE:	21 MAY 2002
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT

1. This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing with costs an application under s 46PO of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986, in which the appellant, Gaja Lakshmi Paramasivam, alleged unlawful discrimination by the respondent, Milena Juraszek.

2. The background to that proceeding may be quickly sketched.  A temporary employment agency provided Mrs Paramasivam’s services to a government business enterprise called Health Services Australia Limited (“HSA”) for a period commencing on or about 7 February 2000.  Ms Juraszek commenced employment with HSA on 14 February 2000.  Her duties included supervision of Mrs Paramasivam.  On 12 April 2000 Ms Juraszek arranged with the employment agency for Mrs Paramasivam’s services to be withdrawn at the end of that week.  Mrs Paramasivam complained to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission that Ms Juraszek took this action because of “my Asian background” and that it was unlawful under Pt II of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.  The President of the Commission terminated the complaint on the ground that she was satisfied that it was lacking in substance.

3. Evidence was given at the hearing in the Court below by both parties and by another employee of HSA.  Mrs Paramasivam appeared there in person (as she has done before us).  A transcript of oral evidence has not been included in the appeal papers.  However, the trial judge’s reasons contain an obviously careful analysis of the evidence touching upon both Mrs Paramasivam’s work performance and events leading up to her services being withdrawn.  After setting out that evidence, his Honour described the case presented to him by Mrs Paramasivam this way:

   “The case for the applicant is that the objective circumstances do not establish a proper basis for terminating her services on the grounds of incompetence and that, in the absence of any other rational explanation, it should be inferred that the real reason for the applicant’s dismissal was because of her…