Rivera v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission

In the case of Rivera v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, the applicant, Mr Rivera, sought judicial review of a decision by the President of the Commission to decline to continue the inquiry into a complaint he had filed. The complaint pertained to incidents of assault, intimidation, and serious physical and sexual attacks. Mr Rivera had also filed a Statement of Claim in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which involved the same acts as the complaint before the Commission. The President decided to decline continuing the inquiry, believing that the court action would provide a more appropriate remedy.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the President's decision to decline continuing the inquiry was unreasonable. Specifically, the court had to determine if it was appropriate for the President to have formed the opinion that the Statement of Claim in the Supreme Court would provide a more appropriate remedy when the court action had only recently been filed. Mr Rivera argued that it was premature for the President to have reached this conclusion, as there were uncertainties regarding whether his court claim would proceed, including potential issues with jurisdiction, statute of limitations, and security costs.

The court found that the President's decision was not unreasonable. The court reasoned that it was within the President's authority to consider whether another remedy might be more appropriate, even if the court action was in its early stages. The court noted that the similarity between the acts in the court claim and the complaint before the Commission supported the President's decision. Additionally, the court held that the decision was not so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have arrived at it.

ORDERS:

1. The application for judicial review be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the costs of the second respondent, the Commonwealth of Australia.