Scott v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission - [2010] FCA 1427

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Scott v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [2010] FCA 1427

Citation: Scott v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [2010] FCA 1427

Parties: RALPH SCOTT and SOPHIE SCOTT v HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION and COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

File number: VID 1063 of 2010

Judge: MARSHALL J

Date of judgment: 17 December 2010

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE—application for leave to appeal from summary judgment pursuant to s 31A (2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)—relitigation of past cases—abuse of process.

Legislation:
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 31A (2), 25(2)(a)
Australian Human Rights Act 1986 (Cth) s 20 (2) (c)(iii)
Administrative Decisions Judicial Review Act 1977 (Cth) ss 5(1)(e), s 5(2)(b), s 5(1)(h), s 5(3)(b), s 5(2)(e), s 5(1)(a), s 5(2)(g) and s 5(1)(j)

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Opened for signature 16 December 1996. UTS 999 (entered into force 23 March 1976).
Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons (9 December 1975).

Cases cited: Décor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397
Kowalski v MMAL Staff Superannuation Fund Pty Ltd (2009) 178 FCR 401
Scott v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [2010] FCA 1321

Date of Hearing: 13 December 2010

Date of Order: 13 December 2010

Date of Publication of Reasons 17 December 2010

Place: Melbourne

Division: GENERAL DIVISION

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 20

The Applicants were represented by the second applicant.

Counsel for the Second Respondent: Mr P J Ginnane

Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 1063 of 2010

BETWEEN:
RALPH SCOTT
First Applicant

SOPHIE SCOTT
Second Applicant

AND:
HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
First Respondent

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MARSHALL J

DATE OF ORDER:

13 DECEMBER 2010

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
2.The applicants pay the second respondent’s costs of the application.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 1063 of 2010

BETWEEN:
RALPH SCOTT
First Applicant

SOPHIE SCOTT
Second Applicant

AND:
HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
First Respondent

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MARSHALL J

DATE:

17 DECEMBER 2010

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

On 13 December 2010, the Court announced after hearing the submissions of the applicants, that it declined to grant the applicants leave to appeal from the judgment of North J in Scott v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [2010] FCA 1321. What follows are the reasons for the making of that order.
The applicants, Mr Ralph Scott and Mrs Sophie Scott, applied to the Court in 2008 for a review of a decision of the first respondent, then known as…

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: [2010] FCA 1427
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Federal Court was an application for leave to appeal from a judgment of North J in Scott v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [2010] FCA 1321. The applicants, Ralph Scott and Sophie Scott, sought a review of a decision by the Australian Human Rights Commission (formerly the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission) not to inquire into a complaint about an alleged breach of their human rights. The respondents, the Commission and the Commonwealth of Australia, sought summary judgment against the applicants. The applicants' application for leave to appeal was dismissed by Marshall J. The applicants had previously been unsuccessful in seeking a review of the Commission’s decision in the Federal Court and in other courts. Their application to the Court to review the Commission’s decision was an abuse of process, and they had no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting their application. The proposed grounds of appeal did not identify any appealable error made by the Court at first instance. The judgment of North J was carefully reasoned and attended by no doubt warranting reconsideration by a Full Court. The refusal of leave to appeal would not result in any substantial injustice. The applicants pay the second respondent's costs of the application.

Orders