Scott v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission - [2007] FMCA 1642

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SCOTT v HREOC

[2007] FMCA 1642

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Summary dismissal – Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission declined complaint – judicial review application of decision.

Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth)
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth)
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act, s.20, 20(2)(c)(i) & (iii), 2(3)(a), 2(3)(b)
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth), s.5(2)
Race Discrimination Act

Scott v Secretary, Department of Social Security [1999] FCA 1774
Scott v Secretary, Department of Social Security [2000] FCA 1241
Scott v Peddler [2003] FCA 650
Scott v Peddler [2004] FCAFC 67
Ex parte Nguyen (1998) 196 CLR 254

Applicants:

RALPH & SOPHIE SCOTT

Respondent:

HUMAN RIGHTS & EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION

File number:

MLG 1538 of 2006

Judgment of:

Phipps FM

Hearing date:

23 April 2007

Date of last submission:

23 April 2007

Delivered at:

Melbourne

Delivered on:

18 October 2007

REPRESENTATION

The Applicants appearing in person:

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr Ginnane

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Australian Government Solicitors

ORDERS

The Application filed on the 18 September 2006 is dismissed pursuant to rule 13.10 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.
The Application contained in paragraph 3 of the Commonwealth of Australia’s Application filed 2 March 2007 is adjourned to the default date of 31 December 2007.
The Applicant shall pay the costs of the Second Respondent upon the Federal Court Scale to be taxed in default of agreement pursuant to Order 62 of the Federal Court Rules.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
MELBOURNE

MLG 1538 OF 2006

RALPH & SOPHIE SCOTT

Applicant

And

HUMAN RIGHTS & EQUAL OPPORTUNITES COMMISSION

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

The applicants were both born in Poland and came to Australia as refugees in 1986. They have disabilities and both receive pensions. A change in the law in the middle of 1995 meant that Mrs Scott's type of benefit ceased to exist and she had to apply for a different one. It was not paid for three months but was backdated. Mr and Mrs Scott claim that during the three months they suffered starvation and hardship. They now have a long history of dispute and litigation with Centrelink and its predecessor the Department of Social Security.
In May 2006 they complained to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission that decisions of the High Court and Federal Court and actions of Centrelink were inconsistent or contrary to their human rights. The Commission declined the complaint. The commission said their complaint against Centrelink had been dealt with adequately and their complaints against the courts were misconceived The applicants have applied for judicial review of the HREOC decision. The Commonwealth of Australia now applies for summary dismissal of the application.
The issue is whether the applicants have a reasonable prospect of success in their application for judicial review.

The applicants circumstances, the disputes and litigation

The applicants were both born in Poland and came to Australia as refugees in 1986. Since October 1991 the first…

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 Human Rights and Equal Opportunity 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: [2007] FMCA 1642
Decision Date: 18 October 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory heard a case between Scott and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, which centred on a dispute regarding the legality of certain actions taken by the Commission in relation to Scott. The crux of the matter was whether the Commission's actions were consistent with the provisions of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Act. The court was tasked with determining whether the Commission had overstepped its authority and whether Scott's rights were infringed upon in the process.

The legal issues that needed to be resolved by the court included the interpretation of the Act, the scope of the Commission's powers, and the extent to which Scott's rights were protected under the legislation. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the Commission's actions were procedurally fair and whether there were any breaches of natural justice. The court's decision would hinge on a careful analysis of the statutory framework and the principles of administrative law.

In delivering its judgment, the court concluded that the Commission's actions were within the bounds of the Act and did not infringe upon Scott's rights. The court found that the Commission had acted in accordance with the statutory provisions and had not exceeded its powers. Furthermore, the court held that the Commission's procedures were fair and did not breach any principles of natural justice. Consequently, the court dismissed Scott's application, affirming the legality of the Commission's actions.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Application filed on the 18 September 2006 is dismissed pursuant to rule 13.10 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.