Pham v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission

Link copied
Case Copied 6 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Pham v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission [2002] FCAFC 353

CHARLES PHAM v HUMAN RIGHTS & EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (DEFENCE) & UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND

V 307 of 2002

JUDGES:      WHITLAM, NORTH and WEINBERG JJ
DATE:          6 NOVEMBER 2002
PLACE:        MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

V 307 of 2002

BETWEEN:

CHARLES PHAM
APPELLANT

AND:

HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
FIRST RESPONDENT

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (DEFENCE)
SECOND RESPONDENT

UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

WHITLAM, NORTH and WEINBERG JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

6 NOVEMBER 2002

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

  1. Leave to appeal from the order made by Gray J on 9 May 2002 dismissing the claims against the second and third respondents is refused.

  2. The appeal in respect of those claims is dismissed as incompetent.

  3. The appeal from the said order dismissing the claim against the first respondent is dismissed.

  4. There is no order for costs of the appeal.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

V 307 of 2002

BETWEEN:

CHARLES PHAM
APPELLANT

AND:

HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
FIRST RESPONDENT

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (DEFENCE)
SECOND RESPONDENT

UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

WHITLAM, NORTH and WEINBERG JJ

DATE:

6 NOVEMBER 2002

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

WHITLAM J

  1. On 4 March 2002 Charles Pham commenced a proceeding under Pt IIB Div 2 of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (“the Act”), alleging unlawful discrimination by three named respondents, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (“the Commission”), the Commonwealth of Australia (Defence) (“the Commonwealth”) and the University of Queensland (“the University”). The proceeding related to a complaint lodged by Mr Pham against the Commission, which the President of the Commission had terminated on 7 February 2001. The Commonwealth and the University were not respondents to the terminated complaint, and each of them applied to have the claim against it summarily dismissed. The application against the Commission was also out of time. By virtue of s 46PO(2) of the Act, such an application had to be made within 28 days after 7 February 2001 or “within such further time” as the Court allows.

  2. The motions for summary dismissal were heard by Gray J on 9 May 2002, at which time his Honour also considered whether to allow Mr Pham the further time necessary to pursue an application against the Commission.  At the conclusion of the hearing that day, his Honour made an order dismissing the proceeding generally.

  3. On 20 May 2002 the Registry accepted for filing a document lodged by Mr Pham, purporting to appeal from Gray J's order.  The question has arisen here today as to whether that appeal is competent. 

  4. An order for summary dismissal is an interlocutory order.  By way of authority it is convenient to refer to the recent Full Court judgment in Marketing Advisory Services (MAS)…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Pham v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2002] FCAFC 353
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pham v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission involved the applicant, Pham, contesting the dismissal of his claims against the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC). The disputes included allegations of racial discrimination and victimisation, and the legality of HREOC's actions. The matter was brought before the court for determination of the validity of the dismissal and the procedural fairness of the HREOC's actions.

The central legal issues in this case revolved around the competence of the appeal against the HREOC, the procedural fairness of the Commission's actions, and the validity of the dismissal of the applicant's claims. The court was required to determine whether the applicant had standing to bring the appeal, whether the HREOC had acted lawfully and fairly, and if the dismissal of the claims was justified.

In examining the matter, the court found that the appeal against the HREOC was not competent due to the lack of standing on the part of the applicant. The court held that the applicant did not have the requisite legal standing to challenge the decisions of the HREOC in the manner presented. Furthermore, the court determined that the HREOC had acted within its lawful powers and had conducted the proceedings in a fair manner. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the earlier order dismissing the applicant's claims. The court also noted that no order for costs of the appeal would be made.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

Leave to appeal from the order made by Gray J on 9 May 2002 dismissing the claims against the second and third respondents is refused.

2.

The appeal in respect of those claims is dismissed as incompetent.

3.

The appeal from the said order dismissing the claim against the first respondent is dismissed.

4.

There is no order for costs of the appeal.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.