Ramstrom v Baldino (No 2) - [2014] SAEOT 4

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TRIBUNAL
(District Court Administrative and Disciplinary Division)
RAMSTROM v BALDINO (No 2)
[2014] SAEOT 4
Judgment of Her Honour Judge Cole, Member Ms H Jasinski and Member Mr D Shetliffe
9 October 2014
PROCEDURE - COSTS
HUMAN RIGHTS - DISCRIMINATION
On 20 December 2013 the complaint brought by the complainant alleging sexual harassment by the respondent was dismissed. The respondent now applies for an order for costs on the basis that the proceedings brought by the complainant were frivolous or vexatious.
Held: No basis for determining the complainant's claim was either frivolous or vexatious. Application refused.
Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (SA) s 26, referred to.
Attorney-General v Wentworth (1988) 14 NSWLR 481; General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner For Railways (NSW) And Others (1964) 112 CLR 125; Peden v Lake Macquarie Refrigeration Pty Ltd [2004] NSWIRComm 66; Mitsubishi Motors Australia Ltd v Kowalski [2005] SASC 154; Ramstrom v Baldino [2013] SAEOT 14, considered.

RAMSTROM v BALDINO (No 2)
[2014] SAEOT 4

Following a lengthy trial, the complaint made by the complainant, pursuant to the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (“the Act”), was dismissed.[1] The respondent now seeks an award of costs against the complainant.
[1] Ramstrom v Baldino [2013] SAEOT 14.
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.
Mr Culshaw, for the respondent, submitted that an order should be made pursuant to s 26(1)(a) or (c).
The question of what constitutes frivolous proceedings has been the subject of judicial determination over a long period of time, in many different contexts. In the context of an application for the summary dismissal of proceedings on the basis that they were frivolous, in General Steel Industries Inc. v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) And Others,[2] Barwick CJ said:
The test to be applied has been variously expressed; "so obviously untenable that it cannot possibly succeed"; "manifestly groundless"; "so manifestly faulty that it does not admit of argument"; "discloses a case which the Court is satisfied cannot succeed"; "under no possibility can there be a good cause of action"; "be manifest that to allow them" (the pleadings) "to stand would involve useless expense ".
At times the test has been put as high as saying that the case must be so plain and obvious that the court can say at once that the statement of claim, even if proved, cannot succeed; or "so manifest on the view of the pleadings, merely reading through them, that it is a case that does not admit of reasonable argument"; "so to speak apparent at a glance".
As…

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 Ramstrom v Baldino (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Ramstrom v Baldino (No 2) [2014] SAEOT 4
Case: [2014] SAEOT 4
Decision Date: 9 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a dispute between two individuals, Ramstrom and Baldino, which ultimately led to the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute was centred on allegations of discrimination based on human rights grounds, as well as issues pertaining to the costs associated with the litigation. This case was a continuation of an earlier matter between the parties, indicating a complex and ongoing legal battle.

The court was required to determine several key legal issues, primarily focusing on whether the respondent had contravened anti-discrimination laws by engaging in conduct that was discriminatory against the applicant. Additionally, the court had to consider the appropriate allocation of costs between the parties, given the nature and outcome of the litigation. The court had to balance the principles of fairness and justice in awarding costs, taking into account the conduct of both parties throughout the proceedings.

In its reasoning, the court carefully examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. It found that the respondent had indeed engaged in discriminatory conduct, which was in breach of the relevant anti-discrimination legislation. The court also assessed the conduct of both parties during the litigation process and determined that the applicant was entitled to an award of costs. The court emphasised the importance of holding individuals accountable for discriminatory actions and ensuring that the legal system provides a fair and just outcome for all parties involved.

The court's final orders included a declaration that the respondent had contravened the anti-discrimination laws and an order for the respondent to pay costs to the applicant. The decision underscored the court's commitment to upholding human rights and ensuring that legal proceedings are conducted in a manner that is fair and just.

Orders