Scott v Australian Human Rights Commission - [2013] FCA 569

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Scott v Australian Human Rights Commission [2013] FCA 569

Citation: Scott v Australian Human Rights Commission [2013] FCA 569

Parties: RALPH SCOTT and SOPHIE SCOTT v AUSTRALIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

File number: VID 12 of 2013

Judge: BROMBERG J

Date of judgment: 13 June 2013

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Applicants subject to order that no proceedings be instituted without leave of the Court – Application for leave to commence judicial review proceeding in circumstances where leave to commence such a proceeding had been previously refused – Whether application should be dismissed as an abuse of process.

Legislation: Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth)
ss 5(1)(e), 5(1)(j), 5(2)
Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) ss 20(2)(c)(i), 20(2)(c)(iii), 20(2)(c)(iv), s 46PH(1)(b)
Federal Court Rules 1976 (Cth)
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)

Cases cited: Scott v Pedler [2003] FCA 650
Scott v Pedler [2004] FCAFC 67
Scott v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [2010] FCA 1323
Scott v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [2007] FCA 2055
Scott v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [2007] FMCA 1642
Commonwealth of Australia v Scott [2011] FCA 768
Scott v Human Rights Commission [2012] FCA 1466

Date of hearing: Determined on the papers

Place: Melbourne

Division: GENERAL DIVISION

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 27

Counsel for the applicants: The Applicants are self-represented

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 12 of 2013

BETWEEN:
RALPH SCOTT
First Applicant

SOPHIE SCOTT
Second Applicant

AND:
AUSTRALIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Respondent

JUDGE:

BROMBERG J

DATE OF ORDER:

13 JUNE 2013

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The applicants’ application for leave to start a proceeding be dismissed.
2.The applicants’ interlocutory application dated 26 February 2013 be dismissed.

Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 12 of 2013

BETWEEN:
RALPH SCOTT
First Applicant

SOPHIE SCOTT
Second Applicant

AND:
AUSTRALIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Respondent

JUDGE:

BROMBERG J

DATE:

13 JUNE 2013

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Mr and Mrs Scott seek leave to institute a proceeding. They have made the application because they are precluded by an order of the Court from starting a proceeding without leave of the Court. The draft application filed with the Court in relation to which leave is sought, relates to an application for judicial review of a decision of the Australian Human Rights Commission (“the AHRC”) made on 27 November 2012 to cease to inquire into and to terminate a complaint made by Mr and Mrs Scott. That decision was made by the AHRC on the grounds that the subject matter of the complaint had been adequately dealt with by the courts and that the complaint had been lodged more than 12 months after the alleged unlawful discrimination took place.
Mr and Mrs Scott have been seeking redress since at least 1999, for what they consider to be a failure…

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 Scott v Australian Human Rights 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: [2013] FCA 569
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Scott v Australian Human Rights Commission involved Ralph Scott and Sophie Scott, who sought leave to institute a proceeding against the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC). The Scotts aimed to challenge the AHRC's decision to cease inquiring into and terminate their complaint regarding alleged unlawful discrimination by Commonwealth Government authorities between 1993 and 1996. The AHRC's decision was based on the grounds that the complaint was lodged more than 12 months after the alleged discrimination and had been adequately dealt with by the courts. The Scotts had a history of extensive litigation concerning the same subject matter, which had been repeatedly dismissed by various courts.

The legal issues before the court included whether the Scotts' application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings constituted an abuse of process and whether the application had a reasonable cause of action. The court had to determine if the Scotts' attempt to relitigate the same grievances, despite previous dismissals, warranted the dismissal of their application as an abuse of process. The court also had to assess whether the Scotts' application met the criteria for leave to commence proceedings under the Federal Court Rules 2011.

In dismissing the Scotts' application, the court found that their attempt to relitigate the same issues, despite having been previously warned about the vexatious nature of their claims, constituted an abuse of process. The court noted that the Scotts' application was essentially the same as the one previously dismissed by Tracey J, albeit with minor variations in format. The court emphasised the importance of finality in litigation, the need to avoid waste of judicial resources, and the need to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice. The court also found that the Scotts' application was devoid of any reasonable cause of action and was therefore vexatious.

The court dismissed the Scotts' application for leave to commence proceedings and also dismissed their interlocutory application to vary the draft application for judicial review. The court ordered that the applicants' application for leave to start a proceeding be dismissed and that their interlocutory application dated 26 February 2013 be dismissed.

Orders