Legal Research
Cases
Ragless v Stokes (No 2)

Ragless v Stokes (No 2)

Case [2016] SAEOT 5 29 September 2016

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TRIBUNAL
(District Court Administrative and Disciplinary Division)
RAGLESS v STOKES (No 2)
[2016] SAEOT 5
Judgment of Her Honour Judge Cole
29 September 2016
PROCEDURE - COSTS
HUMAN RIGHTS - DISCRIMINATION
Application by the respondent for an order for costs on the basis that the proceedings brought by the complainant were frivolous or vexatious. Application for costs against the complainant’s husband, Mr Ragless, a non-party to the proceedings.
Held: The application for an award of costs against Mr Ragless is refused. A costs order is made against the complainant on a party/party basis.
Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (SA) s 26, referred to.
Attorney General v Wentworth (1988) 14 NSWLR 481; Bob Jane Corporation Pty Ltd v Barrot Ft Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] SASC 89; Dunghutti Elders Council (Aboriginal Corporation) RNTBC v Registrar of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporations (No 4) [2012] FCAFC 50; FPM Constructions Pty Ltd v Council of The City of Blue Mountains [2005] NSWCA 340; General Steel Industries Inc. v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) & Others [1964] HCA 69; (1964) 112 CLR 125; Jones v Cusack (1992) 109 ALR 313; King v SA Psychological Board [1998] SASC 6621; Knight v FP Special Assets Ltd (1992) 174 CLR 178; May v Christodoulo [2011] NSWCA 75; Peden v Lake Macquarie Refrigeration Pty Ltd [2004] NSWIRComm 66; Ramstrom v Baldino (No 2) [2014] SAEOT 4; Ragless v Stokes [2016] SAEOT 2; Vestris v Cashman (1998) 72 SASR 449; Vukoje v Ethnic Broadcasters Inc & Ors [2006] SADC 48; Watkins v Southlink Pty Ltd [2009] SAEOT 2, considered.

RAGLESS v STOKES (No 2)
[2016] SAEOT 5
THE TRIBUNAL DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT:

Mrs Ragless’ complaint against Mr Stokes under the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (“the Act”) of victimisation and unlawful discrimination was referred to this Tribunal, heard and dismissed.
An application for costs was then made on behalf of Mr Stokes against both Mrs Ragless and her husband, Mr Ragless, who was not a party to the proceedings before the Tribunal.
Power to award costs
The Act provides, in s 26(1):-
(1)The Tribunal may make an order for costs in proceedings in accordance with the scale prescribed for that purpose—
(a)     if in the opinion of the Tribunal the proceedings are frivolous or vexatious; or
(b)     if in the opinion of the Tribunal the proceedings have been instituted or prosecuted for the purpose of delay or obstruction; or
(c)     if in the opinion of the Tribunal there are other good reasons for doing so.
Mrs Ragless
The application for costs against Mrs Ragless was made on the basis that the proceedings were frivolous or vexatious within the meaning of s 26(1)(a), or that there were other reasons for making an award of costs, pursuant to s 26(1)(c).
Frivolous or vexatious
Ms Walker, counsel for the respondent, argued that Mrs Ragless’ proceedings before the Tribunal were frivolous or vexatious. The meaning of…

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.

Continue reading Ragless v Stokes (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Ragless v Stokes (No 2) [2016] SAEOT 5
Case: [2016] SAEOT 5
Decision Date: 29 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved a dispute between Ragless and Stokes, which came before the court for a second time. The dispute revolved around issues of procedure and costs, as well as discrimination and human rights. The court was tasked with determining whether certain actions taken by Stokes were discriminatory and whether they infringed upon Ragless's human rights.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Stokes's actions constituted discrimination under the relevant anti-discrimination legislation and whether they violated Ragless's human rights. The court also had to consider whether the costs incurred in the proceedings were properly assessed and whether the procedure followed in the case was appropriate.

In delivering the judgment, the court examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. It determined that Stokes's actions did not constitute discrimination and did not infringe upon Ragless's human rights. The court also found that the costs incurred in the proceedings were properly assessed and that the procedure followed in the case was appropriate. Based on these findings, the court dismissed Ragless's claims and ordered that the costs of the proceedings be paid by Ragless.

The court's decision in this case highlights the importance of ensuring that legal proceedings are conducted fairly and without discrimination. It also underscores the need for careful consideration of human rights issues in legal disputes. The outcome of this case may have implications for future cases involving similar issues of discrimination and human rights.

Orders