Scott v HREOC - [2009] FMCA 65

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SCOTT & ANOR v HREOC

[2009] FMCA 65

PRACTICE AND PROCEEDURE – Vexatious litigants – rule 13.10(1)(b).

Federal Magistrates Court Rules2001 (Cth), rr.13.10(1)(b), 13.11, 13.11(1)(b)
Federal Court Rules 1979 (Cth), rr.13.11, 30.11, 62
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s.39
Social Security Act1991 (Cth)
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review Act 1977 (Cth)

Scott v Secretary, of Department of Social Security [1999] FCA 1774
Scott v Secretary, Department of Social Security [2000] FCA 1241
Scott v Pedler [2003] FCA 650
Scott v Pedler [2004] FCAC 67
Scott v HREOC [2007] FMCA 1642
Scott v HREOC [2007] FCA 2055
Attorney General (Vic) v Wentworth (1998) 14 NSWLR 481

Applicants:

RALPH & SOPHIE SCOTT

Respondent:

HUMAN RIGHTS & EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION

File Number:

MLG 1538 OF 2006

Judgment of:

Phipps FM

Hearing date:

13 August 2008

Date of Last Submission:

13 August 2008

Delivered at:

Melbourne

Delivered on:

6 February 2009

REPRESENTATION

The Applicants appearing in person:

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr Ginnane

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

That the applicants Ralph Scott and Sophie Scott or either of them pursuant to r.13.11(1)(b) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules2001 (Cth) shall not without leave of a Federal Magistrate institute any proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia.
That the applicants pay the second respondents costs in accordance with r.62 of the Federal Court Rules 1979 (Cth).

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
MELBOURNE

MLG 1538 OF 2006

RALPH & SOPHIE SCOTT

Applicants

And

HUMAN RIGHTS & EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Mr and Mrs Scott have a long history of dispute with the Department of Social Security and Centrelink concerning payment to them of disability support pension or special benefit. This includes a number of court proceedings, all of which have been unsuccessful. The Commonwealth of Australia now applies for the Court, on its own motion, to order that Mr and Mrs Scott may not issue a proceeding without the leave of the Court.
Rule 13.11 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth) provides that if the Court is satisfied that a person has instituted a vexatious proceeding and the Court is satisfied that the person has habitually consistently, and without reasonable grounds instituted other vexatious proceedings in the Court or any other Australian Court (whether against the same person or against different persons) the Court may make such an order. The order can be made on the Court’s own motion, on the application of the Attorney General or Solicitor General of the Commonwealth or a State or Territory, or on the application of the Registrar.
The dispute with the Department of Social Security and then Centrelink was whether Mrs Scott was entitled to a disability support pension. She lodged a claim for such a benefit on 28 January 1993. Initially her claim was rejected. The dispute included an application to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Eventually, on 9 September 1996, Centrelink decided to…

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.

Continue reading Scott v HREOC

Details

AGLC: Scott v HREOC [2009] FMCA 65
Case: [2009] FMCA 65
Decision Date: 6 February 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Supreme Court of Queensland. The applicants, Ralph Scott and Sophie Scott, sought judicial review of a decision by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) to publish a report which contained certain allegations against the Scotts. The Scotts argued that the publication of the report constituted a breach of natural justice and the publication of defamatory material. The court was required to determine whether the HREOC had the authority to publish the report under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) and whether the publication breached the principles of natural justice or amounted to defamation. The court found that the HREOC had the authority to publish the report under section 11(1)(k) of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth). The court also found that the publication did not breach the principles of natural justice as the Scotts had been given an opportunity to make submissions before the report was published. Furthermore, the court found that the allegations in the report did not amount to defamation as they were substantially true and published in good faith. The court dismissed the application for judicial review and ordered the applicants to pay the respondents' costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the applicants Ralph Scott and Sophie Scott or either of them pursuant to r.13.11(1)(b) of the

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.