Legal Research
Cases
Sebastian v Rail Infrastructure Corporation & anor (EOD)

Sebastian v Rail Infrastructure Corporation & anor (EOD)

Link copied

Case Copied 9 April 2006 34 min read

Contents

On this page

Appeal Panel - Internal

CITATION: Sebastian v Rail Infrastructure Corporation & anor (EOD) [2006] NSWADTAP 44

PARTIES: APPELLANT
Joseph Sebastian
FIRST RESPONDENT
Rail Infrastructure Corporation
SECOND RESPONDENT
State Rail Authority of NSW

FILE NUMBER: 069003

HEARING DATES: 30/03/2006

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 03/30/2006

DATE OF DECISION:
09/04/2006

BEFORE: Hennessy N - Magistrate (Deputy President); Goode P - Judicial Member; Schembri A - Non Judicial Member

CATCHWORDS: adequacy of reasons - costs against non parties - denial of natural justice in relation to application for costs - enforceability of terms of a contract - leave to appeal interlocutory decision

MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter

FILE NUMBER UNDER APPEAL: 041071, 041080, 051070

LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Anti-Discrimination Act 1977

CASES CITED: Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Limited v Philip Morris Inc (1981) 148 CLR 170
Applicant NAGM of 2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 396
Brilliant Digital Entertainment Pty Ltd v Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd [2004] FAFC 270
Cargill Australia Limited v Higginson (No 2) NSWADTAP 33
Cleary Bros (Bombo) Pty Ltd -v- Cvetkovski (EOD) [2001] NSWADTAP 10
Collector of Customs v Pozzolanic (1993) 43 FCR 280
Damjanovic v Maley (2002) 55 NSWLR 149
Dobbs v National Bank of Australasia Ltd (1935) 53 CLR 343;
Gibbons v Wright (1954) 91 CLR 423
International Harvester Co of Australia Pty Ltd v Carrigans Hazeldene Pastoral Co (1958) 100 CLR 644
Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Co-op Co Ltd [1990] VR 355 at 364. In Décor Corp Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 104 ALR 621.
Licul v Corney (1976) 180 CLR 212 at 225; Carr v Finance Corporation of Australia Ltd (No 1) (1981) 147 CLR 246 at 248
Locnere Pty Ltd v Jakk’s Bagel & Bread Co Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 1123
Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353
Owners Corporation Strata Plan 62285 & Ors v Betona Corporation (NSW) Pty Ltd & Ors [2006] NSWSC 216
Southern Cross Exploration NL v Fire and All Risks Insurance Co Ltd [No 2] (1990) 21 NSWLR 200 and Symonds v Vass & Ors [2003] NSWSC 170.
Tu v University of Sydney (No. 2) (EOD) [2002] NSWADTAP 25
Williams v Minister for Environment & Heritage 132 LGERA 368; [2004] FCAFC 58
Y v V & X [2003] NSWADTAP 44

REPRESENTATION:
APPELLANT
M Beck, agent
FIRST & SECOND RESPONDENTS
C Ronalds, SC

ORDERS: 1. Leave to appeal against the Tribunal’s decision is refused; 2. The respondents’ application for costs is refused

Introduction

1 Mr Sebastian made three complaints of disability discrimination (two of which included claims of victimisation) against the State Rail Authority of NSW (SRA) and Rail Infrastructure Corporation (RIC). The complaints were made under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (AD Act) and relate to an application Mr Sebastian made to the SRA for employment as a Customer Service Attendant. Mr Sebastian disclosed that he was “dyslexic” and that he had a disability in relation to “learning/reading”. Testing conducted by the…

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 Sebastian v Rail Infrastructure Corporation & anor (EOD) 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: [2006] NSWADTAP 44
Decision Date: 04/09/2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved Sebastian as the appellant, challenging a decision made by the Rail Infrastructure Corporation and another respondent. The dispute centred around the adequacy of reasons provided for a decision made by the Tribunal, the enforceability of certain contractual terms, and the denial of natural justice in relation to an application for costs. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issues addressed by the court included whether the reasons provided by the Tribunal were adequate, whether the terms of the contract were enforceable, and whether the denial of natural justice occurred in the application for costs. Additionally, the court had to consider the enforceability of costs against non-parties and whether leave to appeal an interlocutory decision should be granted.

The court found that the reasons provided by the Tribunal were adequate, and there was no denial of natural justice in the application for costs. Regarding the enforceability of the contractual terms, the court determined that the terms were indeed enforceable. Furthermore, the court refused the respondents' application for costs against the non-parties. Lastly, the court denied leave to appeal the interlocutory decision made by the Tribunal.

In conclusion, the court refused leave to appeal the Tribunal's decision and the respondents' application for costs. The court's decision upheld the Tribunal's ruling and dismissed the appellant's challenge on the adequacy of reasons, the enforceability of the contract, and the application for costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal against the Tribunal's decision is refused; 2. The respondents' application for costs is refused

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.

CITATION:	Sebastian v Rail Infrastructure Corporation & anor (EOD) [2006] NSWADTAP 44
PARTIES:	APPELLANT Joseph Sebastian FIRST RESPONDENT Rail Infrastructure Corporation SECOND RESPONDENT State Rail Authority of NSW
FILE NUMBER:	069003
HEARING DATES:	30/03/2006
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	03/30/2006
DATE OF DECISION:	09/04/2006
BEFORE:	Hennessy N - Magistrate (Deputy President); Goode P - Judicial Member; Schembri A - Non Judicial Member
CATCHWORDS:	adequacy of reasons - costs against non parties - denial of natural justice in relation to application for costs - enforceability of terms of a contract - leave to appeal interlocutory decision
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
FILE NUMBER UNDER APPEAL:	041071, 041080, 051070
LEGISLATION CITED:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Anti-Discrimination Act 1977
CASES CITED:	Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Limited v Philip Morris Inc (1981) 148 CLR 170 Applicant NAGM of 2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 396 Brilliant Digital Entertainment Pty Ltd v Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd [2004] FAFC 270 Cargill Australia Limited v Higginson (No 2) NSWADTAP 33 Cleary Bros (Bombo) Pty Ltd -v- Cvetkovski (EOD) [2001] NSWADTAP 10 Collector of Customs v Pozzolanic (1993) 43 FCR 280 Damjanovic v Maley (2002) 55 NSWLR 149 Dobbs v National Bank of Australasia Ltd (1935) 53 CLR 343; Gibbons v Wright (1954) 91 CLR 423 International Harvester Co of Australia Pty Ltd v Carrigans Hazeldene Pastoral Co (1958) 100 CLR 644 Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Co-op Co Ltd [1990] VR 355 at 364. In Décor Corp Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 104 ALR 621. Licul v Corney (1976) 180 CLR 212 at 225; Carr v Finance Corporation of Australia Ltd (No 1) (1981) 147 CLR 246 at 248 Locnere Pty Ltd v Jakk’s Bagel & Bread Co Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 1123 Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353 Owners Corporation Strata Plan 62285 & Ors v Betona Corporation (NSW) Pty Ltd & Ors [2006] NSWSC 216 Southern Cross Exploration NL v Fire and All Risks Insurance Co Ltd [No 2] (1990) 21 NSWLR 200 and Symonds v Vass & Ors [2003] NSWSC 170. Tu v University of Sydney (No. 2) (EOD) [2002] NSWADTAP 25 Williams v Minister for Environment & Heritage 132 LGERA 368; [2004] FCAFC 58 Y v V & X [2003] NSWADTAP 44
REPRESENTATION:	APPELLANT M Beck, agent FIRST & SECOND RESPONDENTS C Ronalds, SC
ORDERS:	1. Leave to appeal against the Tribunal’s decision is refused; 2. The respondents’ application for costs is refused