Rana v University of South Australia

[2006] FMCA 1797

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RANA v UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA & ANOR [2006] FMCA 1797

HUMAN RIGHTS – Disability discrimination − where similarities between the application and a statement of claim the subject of proceedings in the Federal Court − whether summary judgment should be awarded under s.19 Federal Magistrates Act 1999 − whether these proceedings constitute issue estoppel − whether the application should be transferred to the Federal Court.

Disability Discrimination Act 1992, ss.5, 6, 22, 23, 42, 43, 123
Federal Magistrates Act 1999, s.19
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, r.8.02(1)

Applicant: RANJIT RANA

First Respondent: UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Second Respondent: HELEN MCIVER

File Number: ADG 288 of 2006

Judgment of: Raphael FM

Hearing date: 23 November 2006

Date of Last Submission: 23 November 2006

Delivered at: Adelaide

Delivered on: 23 November 2006

REPRESENTATION

Applicant in Person

Solicitors for the Respondents: Minter Ellison

ORDERS

1. Proceedings be transferred to the Federal Court of Australia pursuant to Rule 8.02(1) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.

2. Costs reserved.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
ADELAIDE

ADG 288 of 2006

RANJIT RANA

Applicant

And

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

First Respondent

HELEN MCIVER

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 19 October 2006, Mr Ranjit Rana, the applicant, filed an application in this Court seeking relief pursuant to ss.5, 6, 22, 23, 42, 43 and 123 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992  in circumstances which are described in a letter from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission dated 16 October 2006, annexed to the Form 167 Application: 

   “You state that you have a disability, diabetes.  You state that on 27 March 2006, you attended a public forum held at the Convention Centre called, "Hypothetical" which was organised by the University.  You were late.  You were refused entry by Ms Helen McIver for being a trouble-maker, for example, "Complaining to this Commission."  You allege that Ms McIver would not allow you to go to the toilet and that she asked security guards to escort you from the premises.  You claim that, "The reason for the refusal was due to having lodged a previous complaint against the University with this Commission". The University response does not address the substantive issues in the complaint.  The University complains that the subject matter of your complaint is the subject of proceedings in the Federal Court.  It claims that in relation to the same incident you are claiming damage for breach of conduct, misleading and deceptive conduct pursuant to the Trade Practices Act 1974 and in tort.”

   The University, in its response, has also referred to certain proceedings that were heard before Besanko J in the Federal Court in this State on

   
   

   5 and 6 October 2006.  A copy of the statement of claim is annexed. 

   
   

   It would certainly appear that there are similarities between the matters raised in that statement of claim and in the current application before me. 

2. The respondent seeks summary judgment and cites in support of that application, s.19 of the Federal Magistrates Act 1999 which is in the following form:

   “(1)Proceedings must not be instituted in the Federal Magistrates Court in respect of a particular matter if proceedings in respect of an associated matter are pending in the Family Court or the Federal Court.

   …

   (3)    If:

   (a)proceedings are instituted in the Federal Magistrates Court in contravention of subsection (1); and

   (b)the proceedings are subsequently transferred to the Federal Court or the Family Court;

   the proceedings are taken to be as valid as they would have been if subsection (1) had not been enacted.”

   There is also the question of issue estoppel. 

3. It seems to me that it would be in the interests of justice if this matter was transferred to the Federal Court, hopefully into the docket of Besanko J so that a definitive decision can be made as to the extent to which these proceedings are either prohibited pursuant to s.19 or constitute an issue estoppel in relation to the proceedings that Besanko J has been sitting in but has not yet delivered judgment in. It may well be that his Honour could define the issues that are available to the applicant, if any should be available, and then transfer the matter back to this Court for hearing. But at the present stage, it is not appropriate that this Court second guess his Honour on what matters were before him and what matters were not. I therefore make the transfer pursuant to Rule 8.02(1) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001. 

   
   

   Costs shall be reserved.

I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Raphael FM.

Associate: 

Date: