Rivera v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission

Link copied
Case Copied 5 min read

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 2007

FLICK 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
Appellant

AND:

HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION
First Respondent

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Second Respondent

STATE 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 2007

FLICK 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
Appellant

AND:

HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
First Respondent

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Second Respondent

STATE 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
Appellant

AND:

HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
First Respondent

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Second Respondent

STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES
Third Respondent

JUDGE:

FLICK J

DATE:

13 DECEMBER 2007

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. 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).

  2. 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.

  3. 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…

CaseChat AU logo

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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2007] FCA 2037
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the case were Rivera, the appellant, and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, the respondent. The nature of the dispute revolved around an appeal against the dismissal of a complaint about alleged racial discrimination and victimisation. The court in question was the Federal Court of Australia. The legal issues that the court needed to address included whether the respondent's dismissal of the complaint was lawful and whether there was any error in the respondent's process.

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

FLICK J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: FLICK J

Full text does not contain this section.