Scott v Human Rights Commission - [2012] FCA 1466

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Scott v Human Rights Commission [2012] FCA 1466

Citation: Scott v Human Rights Commission [2012] FCA 1466

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

File number: VID 1106 of 2012

Judge: TRACEY J

Date of judgment: 24 December 2012

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – applicants subject to order that no further proceedings be issued without leave of the Court - application for leave to commence proceeding – discretionary considerations – whether proceeding vexatious – whether reasonable cause of action exists

Legislation: Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth
Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth)

Cases cited:
Commonwealth of Australia v Scott [2011] FCA 768 – considered, followed
Scott v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [2010] FCA 1323 – considered, followed

Granich and Associates v Yap [2004] FCA 1567 – cited

Yap v Granich Partners [2008] FCA 1380

Date of hearing: Determined on the papers

Place: Melbourne

Division: GENERAL DIVISION

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 22

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 1106 of 2012

BETWEEN:
RALPH SCOTT
First Applicant

SOPHIE SCOTT
Second Applicant

AND:
AUSTRALIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Respondent

JUDGE:

TRACEY J

DATE OF ORDER:

24 DECEMBER 2012

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The applicants’ application for leave to start a proceeding be refused.

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 1106 of 2012

BETWEEN:
RALPH SCOTT
First Applicant

SOPHIE SCOTT
Second Applicant

AND:
AUSTRALIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Respondent

JUDGE:

TRACEY J

DATE:

24 DECEMBER 2012

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

For almost two decades Mr and Mrs Scott have been aggrieved by what they consider to have been a failure by Commonwealth government authorities, between 1993 and 1996, to grant them certain social security benefits to which they claimed an entitlement. Their sense of grievance has been such that they have pursued litigation in this and other courts since, at least, 1999.
An account of this litigation is provided by North J in Scott v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [2010] FCA 1323 at [48]-[97].
As the litigation progressed a pattern emerged. Each case was founded on substantially the same sub-stratum of facts but, in the later cases, different or additional grounds were relied upon. North J provided an overview of the manner in which the various cases were prosecuted when he said (at [220]) that:
“Although the case was framed a little differently in each proceeding, the same dispute was litigated in each case. Mr and Mrs Scott contended that they suffered injury as a result of the conduct of officers of the Commonwealth in the process of initial rejection of the applications for DSP and SB by Mrs Scott. The proceedings considered the liability of the Commonwealth or its officers on a number of different legal bases including breach of statutory duty, breach of common law duty,…

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 Human Rights Commission

Details

AGLC: Scott v Human Rights Commission [2012] FCA 1466
Case: [2012] FCA 1466
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ralph Scott and Sophie Scott sought leave to commence a judicial review proceeding against the Australian Human Rights Commission, which had declined to entertain a complaint they had made against the Commission. The Scotts had previously been the subject of an order restraining them from instituting further proceedings without leave of the Court. They wished to challenge the Commission’s decision under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth). In order to commence the proceeding, the Scotts required the leave of the Court. Their application for leave was made under Rule 6.03 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. The Scotts had previously pursued litigation on substantially the same facts for almost two decades. In the course of that litigation the Scotts had also made a number of complaints to the Commission. The Scotts’ latest application to the Commission was repetitive of the complaints they had made to the Commission on earlier occasions. The Commission declined to entertain the complaint on the ground that it had been lodged more than 12 months after the alleged unlawful discrimination took place: see s 46PH(1)(b) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth). The Scotts sought leave to commence the judicial review proceeding on the basis that the Commission’s decision was improper, contrary to law or both. The Scotts had not identified any particular ground of judicial review on which they would wish to rely. The Scotts had not satisfied the Court that the proposed proceeding was not vexatious or that they had a reasonable cause of action. The Commission had provided clear and logical reasons for declining to exercise its discretion to entertain a complaint which had been late lodged. The Scotts had provided no reasons for their lengthy delay in pursuing claims of racial and disability discrimination. There was nothing in the Commission’s reasons which could, even vaguely, suggest errors of the kind on which the Scotts would wish to rely in their proposed judicial review application. For these reasons the Scotts’ application for leave was refused.

Orders