Qajar v Australian Human Rights Commission - [2020] FCCA 356

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QAJAR v AUSTRALIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

[2020] FCCA 356

Catchwords:
HUMAN RIGHTS – Application for summary dismissal – whether reasonable prospects of success.

Legislation:

Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth), ss.3, 46P, 46PD, 46PF,

46PO, 46PP

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), rr.11.01, 13.10(a)

Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), s.9(1)

Cases cited:

John Alexander's Clubs Pty Ltd v White City Tennis Club Ltd (2010) 241 CLR 1

Peacock v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [2005] FCAFC

Venerable Dr Peter Carlsson v Right Reverend John Ford [2019] FCA 584

Applicant:

THE SOVEREIGN SOLTAN QEUMARS SHAH QAJAR

Respondent:

AUSTRALIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

File Number:

BRG 791 of 2019

Judgment of:

Judge Jarrett

Hearing date:

17 January 2020

Date of Last Submission:

17 January 2020

Delivered at:

Brisbane

Delivered on:

20 February 2020

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant in person

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Australian Government Solicitor

Solicitors for the Commonwealth of Australia

Commonwealth of Australia

ORDERS

The amended application filed on 24 December, 2019 be dismissed pursuant to rule 13.10(a) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT BRISBANE

BRG 791 of 2019

THE SOVEREIGN SOLTAN QEUMARS SHAH QAJAR

Applicant

And

AUSTRALIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

On 11 September, 2019 the applicant commenced these proceedings against the Australian Human Rights Commission.   On 24 December, 2019 he filed an amended originating application in which he seeks the following orders:
2. An order declaring that the evidence before the court in this matter demonstrates sufficient grounds to invoke the duty of the Commission to ensure performance of the functions of the Commission in compliance with Sections 10A and 11(1)(aa) and (f) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986.
3. An order pursuant to Section 46PP of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 granting an interim injunction to maintain:
(a) the status quo, as it existed immediately before the complaint was lodged;
(b) the rights of the complainant, particularly the right to negotiate by conciliation.
4. An injunction restraining the Australian Government, servants, agents and officers, the Australian Taxation Office, the Attorney-General's Department, the Department of Home Affairs and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, hereinafter referred to as the Commonwealth government bodies, from any act or omission that;
(a)    amounts to the unlawful discrimination complained of, or otherwise;
(b)    repeats the unlawful discrimination complained of, or otherwise; and
(c)     depicts the applicant as having any other identity than his own, The Sovereign Soltan Qeumars Shah Qajar, born 1st January 1969.
5. An order declaring that the Commonwealth government bodies have committed unlawful discrimination.
6. An order directing the Commonwealth government bodies not to repeat or continue such unlawful discrimination.
7. An order requiring the Department of Home Affairs to provide a lawful temporary visa that authorises the applicant's presence in Australia.
8. An order requiring the Department of Home Affairs to provide a document that expunges any responsibility of the applicant for his entry and presence in…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Qajar v Australian Human Rights 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: [2020] FCCA 356
Decision Date: 20 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Justice Jarrett considered an application by the Australian Human Rights Commission (the Commission) for summary dismissal of proceedings brought by Mr Qajar. Mr Qajar had filed an application seeking judicial review of the Commission's decision to dismiss his complaint of unlawful discrimination. The Commission argued that Mr Qajar's application for judicial review had no reasonable prospect of success and should therefore be summarily dismissed.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether Mr Qajar's application for judicial review of the Commission's decision to dismiss his complaint of unlawful discrimination had reasonable prospects of success. This required the Court to assess the merits of Mr Qajar's grounds for judicial review against the standard for summary dismissal, which requires demonstrating that the claim is bound to fail.

Justice Jarrett reasoned that the grounds of Mr Qajar's application for judicial review were based on a misunderstanding of the Commission's role and the nature of the judicial review process. The Court found that the Commission had acted within its statutory powers and that the decision to dismiss the complaint was not vitiated by any error of law. Consequently, the Court concluded that Mr Qajar's application for judicial review lacked reasonable prospects of success.

The Court ordered that the application for judicial review be dismissed.

Orders