Legal Research
Cases
Simplot Australia Pty Ltd v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission

Simplot Australia Pty Ltd v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission

Link copied

Case Copied 9 August 1996 19 min read

Contents

On this page

Administrative Law - Sex Discrimination - Whether complaint under Sex Discrimination Act 1984 must provide sufficient details of the alleged discrimination to show on its face that it relates to an unlawful act - Whether the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has jurisdiction or power to hold an inquiry into a complaint which may not relate to an unlawful act but alleges that a person has done an unlawful act - Whether discrimination upon the ground of a failure to contract with a corporation offered or nominated by a woman on ground of her sex can constitute sex discrimination - Whether error of law in Commission not being satisfied that the complaint relates to an act which is not unlawful.

Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) ss.5, 14(1), 16, 50, 52(2), 52(4), 52(5), 59(1), 79 and 81.
Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (Vic) ss.44(1), 45 and 47.

Nestle Australia Ltd. v. The President and Members of the Equal Opportunity Board [1990] VR 799
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v. Wu Shan Liang (1996) 136 ALR 481

VG204/96 SIMPLOT AUSTRALIA PTY. LTD. (Trading as EDGELL-BIRDS EYE) V. COMMISSIONER ROBERT NETTLEFOLD (Constituting the HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION)

MERKEL J.
MELBOURNE
9 AUGUST 1996

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION No. VG 204 of 1996

B E T W E E N:

SIMPLOT AUSTRALIA PTY. LTD.
(Trading as EDGELL-BIRDS EYE)

Applicant

AND:

COMMISSIONER ROBERT NETTLEFOLD
(Constituting the HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION)

First Respondent

AND:

ANTONIA DI PETTA
Second Respondent

Coram:Merkel J.
Place:Melbourne
Date:9 August 1996

MINUTES OF ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The Application be dismissed.

The applicant pay the taxed costs of the respondents of and incidental to the application.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION No. VG 204 of 1996

B E T W E E N:

SIMPLOT AUSTRALIA PTY. LTD.
(Trading as EDGELL-BIRDS EYE)

Applicant

AND:
              COMMISSIONER ROBERT NETTLEFOLD
         (Constituting the HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL
                  OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION)

First Respondent

AND:

ANTONIA DI PETTA
Second Respondent

Coram:Merkel J.
Place:Melbourne
Date:9 August 1996

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
On 2 March 1994 the second respondent Antonia Di Petta ("Di Petta") lodged a complaint pursuant to s.50 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) ("the Act") alleging that the applicant ("Edgell") had discriminated against her on the ground of her sex.

On 12 March 1995 a delegate of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, acting pursuant to s.52(2)(a) of the Act, decided not to inquire into the act alleged in the complaint on the ground that she was satisfied that it was not unlawful. As a consequence of Di Petta requiring that the complaint be referred to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
("HREOC") pursuant to s.52(4)(a) it was referred to HREOC under s.52(5) of the Act.

Pursuant to s.59(1) of the Act, HREOC was required to hold an inquiry into the complaint or matter…

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 Simplot Australia Pty Ltd v Human Rights and Equal Opportuni... 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: [1996] FCA 718
Decision Date: 9 AUGUST 1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Simplot Australia Pty Ltd, trading as Edgell-Birds Eye, filed an application against the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) and Antonia Di Petta, seeking to prohibit the Commission from further inquiring into a complaint lodged by Di Petta. Di Petta alleged that Edgell had discriminated against her on the grounds of sex, claiming that Edgell awarded a transportation contract to a company other than the one she nominated, due to her sex. Edgell contended that the complaint did not meet the statutory requirements and that the Commission lacked the jurisdiction to inquire into the complaint. The primary issues for determination were whether the complaint conferred jurisdiction upon HREOC to conduct an inquiry and whether the Inquiry Commissioner erred in law by not dismissing the complaint.

The Court found that the complaint did comply with s.50 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), as it alleged that Edgell had done an act that was unlawful under the Act. The Court determined that the complaint need not provide specific details of the alleged discrimination to invoke the jurisdiction of the Commission, as the inquiry process allows for the ascertainment of such details during the investigation. Furthermore, the Court held that the complaint sufficiently detailed the alleged discriminatory treatment against Di Petta based on her sex, contrary to Edgell's submissions.

Regarding the alleged error of law, the Court found that the Inquiry Commissioner did not make a reviewable error in not being satisfied that the complaint related to an act that was not unlawful. The Commissioner's decision was made at an early stage of the inquiry, and he acknowledged that the applicability of the relevant provisions of the Act would be determined during the course of the inquiry. The Court also found no error in the Commissioner's consideration of the discriminatory treatment of Di Petta, rather than her company, as a potential issue to be determined in the inquiry.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the application, finding no jurisdictional or other reviewable error of law committed by the Inquiry Commissioner. The Court ordered that the applicant pay the taxed costs of the respondents.

Orders