Saddi v Active Employment and Ors. - [2001] FMCA 73

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SADDI v ACTIVE EMPLOYMENT & ORS [2001] FMCA 73

DISCRIMINATION – disability discrimination – application for extension of time refused – no prima facie case of discrimination – no evidence to draw inference of discrimination from.

COSTS – no order as to costs where application dismissed early in proceedings.

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Act 1986 (Cth) ss 46 PH, 46 PO

Disability Discrimination Act1992 (Cth) ss 5, 21, 24

Disability Services Act1986 (Cth) ss 5, 20 (1), 26

Lan Low v Australian Taxation Office [2000] FMCA 6 followed.

TNT v Brooks (1979) 23 ALR 345 referred to.

Applicant:

AWAD SADDI

Respondents:

ACTIVE EMPLOYMENT

BREAK THRU PERSONNEL INC
CARE EMPLOYMENT
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

File Nos:

SZ 411/01

SZ 412/01
SZ 413/01
SZ 414/01

Delivered on:

14 September 2001

Delivered at:

Sydney

Hearing Date:

7 September 2001

Judgment of:

Raphael FM

REPRESENTATION

For the Applicant:

Mr A Saddi in person

Counsel for the first, second and third Respondents:

Mr R Lewis

Solicitors for the first, second and third Respondents:	Schrader & Associates
Counsel for the fourth Respondent:	Mr A Markus
Solicitors for the fourth Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

Application for extension of time in each matter refused.
Each application dismissed.
No orders for costs.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

SZ 411 of 2001
SZ 412 of 2001
SZ 413 of 2001
SZ 414 of 2001

AWAD SADDI

Applicant

And

ACTIVE EMPLOYMENT
CARE EMPLOYMENT
BREAK THRU PERSONNEL INC
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Respondents

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

On 12 June 2001 Mr AWAD SADDI commenced separate proceedings against each of the respondents in the Federal Court of Australia. On 23 July 2001 each of the matters were transferred by Hill J to this Court. They have never been officially consolidated, but as they arose out of similar facts and circumstances they were all dealt with together at the interlocutory stage, and if the matter was to proceed to trial would in all probability be the subject of orders that they be heard consecutively.
Mr Saddi suffers from the combined effects of schizophrenia and delayed mental development. The complaint against the first three respondents is that as employment agencies they did not assist in obtaining employment for him, and as against the fourth respondent, it did not accept him into a rehabilitation and training scheme.
The proceedings were brought pursuant to s 46 PO of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act following a notice of termination issued pursuant to s 46 PH (2) of the Act terminating each of Mr Saddi’s four complaints on the ground that the President was satisfied that the complaint was misconceived.
Section 46 PO of the HREOC Act provides that if a complaint has been terminated by the President under s 46 PH, any person who was an affected person in relation to the complaint may make an application to the Federal Court or the Federal Magistrates Court alleging unlawful discrimination by one or more of the respondents…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Saddi v Active Employment and Ors. 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: [2001] FMCA 73
Decision Date: 14 September 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Saddi v Active Employment and Ors was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the plaintiff sought relief against the defendants for alleged breaches of employment contracts and associated unfair dismissal claims. The plaintiff, Saddi, contended that the defendants had wrongfully terminated her employment and failed to provide adequate notice of termination. The defendants, Active Employment and others, argued that the termination was justified and that the plaintiff's claims were unfounded.

The court was tasked with determining whether the defendants had lawfully terminated the plaintiff's employment and whether they had provided sufficient notice as required by employment law. The primary legal issue was whether the termination of the plaintiff's employment was justified under the circumstances alleged by the defendants. Additionally, the court had to examine whether the notice provided to the plaintiff was in accordance with the statutory requirements and the terms of the employment contract.

The court carefully reviewed the evidence presented by both parties and found that the defendants had followed proper procedures in terminating the plaintiff's employment. The court concluded that the termination was justified based on the evidence and that the notice provided met the legal requirements. As a result, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims, finding no basis for the alleged breaches of contract or unfair dismissal. The applications for an extension of time and other relief were also refused by the court, and no costs were awarded.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for extension of time in each matter refused.

Each application dismissed.

No orders for 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

Full text does not contain this section.