Legal Research
Cases
Reilly v The Commonwealth

Reilly v The Commonwealth

Case [2013] SAEOT 4 22 February 2013

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TRIBUNAL
(District Court Administrative and Disciplinary Division)
REILLY v THE COMMONWEALTH
[2013] SAEOT 4
Judgment of Her Honour Judge Cole, Member Ms A Bachmann and Member Ms H Jasinski
22 February 2013
HUMAN RIGHTS - DISCRIMINATION - GROUNDS OF DISCRIMINATION - RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
Complaint made alleging discrimination on the basis of race - whether the Commonwealth is bound by the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 - consideration of the Acts Interpretation Act 1915 - Tribunal has no jurisdiction - complaint dismissed.
Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (SA); Acts Interpretation Act 1915 (SA), referred to.

REILLY v THE COMMONWEALTH
[2013] SAEOT 4

Mr Reilly made a complaint to the Commissioner for Equal Opportunity (“the Commissioner”) on or about 30 November 2011. Mr Reilly complained of discrimination against him on the basis of his race in the context of his employment at the Department of Health and Ageing.
The Commissioner referred the complaint to this Tribunal pursuant to s 95B of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (SA) (“the Act”). Initially the respondent named in the matter was “Department of Health and Ageing”, however, the Department is an emanation of the Commonwealth with no separate legal personality, so the Tribunal made an order substituting the Commonwealth as the respondent, with the consent of Mr Reilly.
This decision concerns a preliminary point raised on behalf of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth asserts that the Act does not apply to it.
The Commonwealth’s argument on Jurisdiction
The Act was passed in 1984. In s 7, the Act says:
This Act binds the Crown.
The term “the Crown” is not defined in the Act.
Mr Begbie, who appeared for the Commonwealth, succinctly and clearly set out the argument that the Commonwealth was not intended to come within “the Crown” in s 7 and is not bound by the Act in his outline:
The EO Act binds “the Crown” in right of the State
12. Section 7 of the EO Act provides that the Act binds “the Crown”. The term “Crown” is not defined in the EO Act. Nor is it generally defined in the Acts Interpretation Act 1915 (SA) (AI Act SA)). As a result, the applicable starting presumption is that the EO Act binds the State only, rather than the State and the Commonwealth: see, for example, Essendon Corporation v Criterion Theatres Ltd (1947) 74 CLR 1 at 10-11, 26-27 and 29, Commonwealth v Bogle (1953) 89 CLR 229 at 255, 259, Paliflex Pty Limited v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (2009) 219 CLR 325 at [19]-[20]. Accordingly, in order to ascertain whether the Commonwealth is also bound by the EO Act, it becomes necessary to consider the principles of statutory interpretation which apply to the question whether legislation evinces an intention to bind the Crown in the right of the Commonwealth.
High Court authority requires a clear intention to bind the Commonwealth
13. In 1984, when the EO Act was introduced, there was a well-recognised rule of statutory construction that the Crown would only be…

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 Reilly v The Commonwealth

Details

AGLC: Reilly v The Commonwealth [2013] SAEOT 4
Case: [2013] SAEOT 4
Decision Date: 22 February 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Reilly v The Commonwealth involved a complaint about discrimination on the basis of race. The complainant alleged that the Commonwealth had discriminated against them on racial grounds. The primary issue before the court was whether the Commonwealth was subject to the provisions of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984, and if so, whether the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The court was tasked with interpreting the Acts Interpretation Act 1915 to determine the extent of the Commonwealth's obligations under the Equal Opportunity Act.

The court considered the scope of the Commonwealth's obligations under the Equal Opportunity Act and whether the Tribunal's jurisdiction extended to claims against the Commonwealth. It was necessary to interpret the Acts Interpretation Act to ascertain whether the Commonwealth's actions fell within the purview of the Equal Opportunity Act. The court concluded that the Commonwealth was not bound by the Equal Opportunity Act and, as a result, the Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The complaint was dismissed on the basis that the Tribunal lacked the authority to entertain claims against the Commonwealth under the Equal Opportunity Act.

Given the findings, the court ruled that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed. The court's decision hinged on the interpretation of statutory provisions and the jurisdictional limits of the Tribunal. This case underscores the importance of statutory interpretation in determining the applicability of anti-discrimination laws to the Commonwealth.

Orders