FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Rivera v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [2007] FCA 2037
CORRIGENDUM
LAWRENCE RIVERA v HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA AND STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES
NSD 2438 OF 2007FLICK J
13 DECEMBER 2007 (CORRIGENDUM 24 JANUARY 2008)
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 2438 OF 2007
BETWEEN:
LAWRENCE RIVERA
AppellantAND:
HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION
First RespondentCOMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Second RespondentSTATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES
Third Respondent
JUDGE:
FLICK J
DATE OF ORDER:
13 DECEMBER 2007
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
CORRIGENDUM
1. On the Orders page, delete the words ‘ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA’ and on the Reasons for Judgment page, delete the words ‘ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA’.
I certify that the preceding one (1) paragraph is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Flick. Associate:
Dated: 24 January 2008
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Rivera v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [2007] FCA 2037
LAWRENCE RIVERA v HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA AND STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES
NSD 2438 OF 2007FLICK J
13 DECEMBER 2007
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 2438 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
LAWRENCE RIVERA
AppellantAND:
HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
First RespondentCOMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Second RespondentSTATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES
Third Respondent
JUDGE:
FLICK J
DATE OF ORDER:
13 DECEMBER 2007
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Appellant’s Notice of Motion as filed 12 December 2007 is dismissed.
2.No order as to costs.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 2438 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
LAWRENCE RIVERA
AppellantAND:
HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
First RespondentCOMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Second RespondentSTATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES
Third Respondent
JUDGE:
FLICK J
DATE:
13 DECEMBER 2007
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Mr Rivera is a citizen of the United States of America who is presently in detention at the Silverwater Metropolitan Reception and Remand Centre under the Extradition Act1988 (Cth).
On 29 May 2006 Mr Rivera filed a complaint with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission alleging that his conditions of detention were contrary to human rights. The facts the subject of that complaint are also being pursued by Mr Rivera in proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The facts in issue, if established, expose serious wrongdoing.
On 13 September 2007 the Commission exercised its powers under s 20(2)(c) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act1986 (Cth) declining to continue the…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Rivera v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2007] FCA 2037
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court's reasoning began with an examination of the respondent's process for handling complaints. The court found that the respondent had followed the correct procedures in dismissing the complaint and that there was no error in the process. The court also considered the merits of the complaint and determined that there was insufficient evidence to support the allegations of racial discrimination and victimisation. The court concluded that the respondent's decision to dismiss the complaint was lawful and that there was no basis for the appeal.
The court dismissed the appellant's notice of motion and made no order as to costs. The court found that the respondent had acted within its legal powers in dismissing the complaint and that there was no basis for the appeal. The court's decision upheld the respondent's process for handling complaints and confirmed that the respondent had acted lawfully in dismissing the complaint. The court's decision also emphasised the importance of following proper procedures when handling complaints of discrimination and victimisation.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The Appellant’s Notice of Motion as filed 12 December 2007 is dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: FLICK J
Full text does not contain this section.