Roger Muller v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

COSTS - Whether order should be made under O62A limiting the costs liability of one party only

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - whether order should be made consolidating proceedings - relevance of liability to pay setting down and hearing fees.

Federal Court Rules - O29r5, O62A
Federal Court of Australia Regulations - reg 2A, 2AA

Maunchest Pty Ltd v John Lindsay Bickford and Ors (Federal Court of Australia, Drummond J, 7 July 1993)
Sacks v Permanent Trustee Australia Limited (1993) 45 FCR 509.
Woodlands and Anor v Permanent Trustee Company Ltd (1995) 58 FCR 139
Re Ling; Ex parte Ling v Commonwealth (1995) 58 FCR 129
Todd v Jones [1969] VR 169
In the matter of Citizen Limbo (1989) 92 ALR 81

ROGER MULLER v HUMAN RIGHTS & EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION & ANOR

NG 504  of  1997

MOORE J

SYDNEY

17 JULY 1997

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA  )  General Distribution
  )
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY )   NG   504 of 1997
  )
GENERAL DIVISION  )

BETWEEN:  ROGER MULLER

Applicant

AND:  HUMAN RIGHTS & EQUAL

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

First Respondent

AND:          THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Second Respondent

JUDGE:        Moore J

PLACE:        Sydney

DATE:          17 July 1997

MINUTES OF ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Proceedings NG 504 of 1997 and NG 671 of 1996 be consolidated.

1. Costs in the Notice of Motion be reserved.

NOTE:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA  )  General Distribution
  )
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY )  No. NG 504 of 1997
  )
GENERAL DIVISION  )

BETWEEN:  ROGER MULLER

Applicant

AND:HUMAN RIGHTS & EQUAL

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

First Respondent

AND:                  THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Second Respondent

JUDGE:        Moore J

PLACE:        Sydney

DATE:          17 July 1997

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

On 17 July 1996, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (“the Commission”) recommended an award of compensation to Mr Roger Muller of $16,161.20.  It did so because it found that Mr Muller had been denied allowances payable to officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and that the denial of the allowances was based on Mr Muller’s sexual preference.  Mr Muller was, at relevant times an officer of the Department, in a stable homosexual relationship and living in London.  The Commission found the denial constituted discrimination in employment based on sexual preference.  These conclusions flowed, in part, from the construction adopted by the Commission of provisions of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) (“the HREOC Act”).

On 15 August 1996 an application was filed by the Commonwealth in this Court seeking judicial review of the decision of the Commission.  The impugned decision comprehended the decision that there had been an act or practice that constituted discrimination on the ground of sexual preference and the decision to recommend payment of $16,161.20.  The Commonwealth contended the Commission had made a number of errors of law, including misconstruing a determination made under the Public Service…