Trapman v Sydney Water Corporation - [2009] FMCA 942

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

TRAPMAN v SYDNEY WATER CORPORATION & ORS

[2009] FMCA 942

HUMAN RIGHTS – Unlawful discrimination – Racial discrimination – interlocutory application – preliminary objection to jurisdiction – whether applicant should be permitted to pursue allegations of racial discrimination not included in the complaint terminated by HREOC – jurisdiction – whether the Court has jurisdiction to deal with facts or issues that were not the subject of the terminated complaint.

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986, ss.46PH, 46PO

Charles v Fuji Xerox Australia Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1531; (2000) 105 IR 153
Vijayakumar v Qantas Airways Limited [2009] FMCA 736
Gama v Qantas Airways Limited [2006] FMCA 11 followed
Hollingdale v Northern Rivers Area Health Service [2004] FMCA 721
Travers v State of New South Wales [2000] FCA 1565
Department of Health v Arumugam [1988] VR 319
Sharma v Legal Aid Queensland [2002] FCAFC 196
Bender v Bovis Lend Lease Pty Ltd [2003] FMCA 277

Applicant:

WILLIAM TRAPMAN

First Respondent:

SYDNEY WATER CORPORATION

Second Respondent:

MARC DAVIES

Third Respondent:

MARK TUNKS

Fourth Respondent:

JOHN KOVAC

Fifth Respondent:

LOGAN MAHADEVA

File Number:

SYG 1930 of 2008

Judgment of:

Scarlett FM

Hearing date:

15 September 2009

Date of Last Submission:

15 September 2009

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

16 September 2009

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Ms Goodchild

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Friend & Co

Counsel for the Respondents:

Mr Shariff

Solicitors for the Respondents:

Sparke Helmore

ORDERS

The Court has jurisdiction to deal with the matters contained in Particulars (a) (ii), (v), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x), (xi) and (xii) of Exhibit 1.
The Court does not have jurisdiction to deal with the matters contained in Particulars (a) (i), (iii), (iv) and (vi) of Exhibit 1.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 1930 of 2008

WILLIAM TRAPMAN

Applicant

And

SYDNEY WATER CORPORATION

First Respondent

MARC DAVIES

Second Respondent

MARK TUNKS

Third Respondent

JOHN KOVAC

Fourth Respondent

LOGAN MAHADEVA

Fifth Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Application

This interlocutory application is an objection by the respondents to certain particulars of claim alleged by the applicant in an application arising under s 46PO of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986. The applicant claims that he has been the subject of unlawful discrimination, being racial discrimination, by Sydney Water Corporation and the other four respondents, who are all employees of Sydney Water Corporation.
The respondents submit that some of the applicant’s complaints include matters over which the Court has no jurisdiction because:
a)They were never the subject of the applicant’s complaint to HREOC; or
b)They were not pressed as complaints; or
c)In one case, it is so lacking in probative value that it ought not to be entertained.

Background

The applicant was employed by Clexan Peak Personnel Pty Limited, a labour hire company that provided labour to Sydney Water Corporation. He claims that over two periods of employment in 2006 and 2007 he was the subject of a number of instances of discrimination…

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 Trapman v Sydney Water Corporation 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: [2009] FMCA 942
Decision Date: 16 September 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Trapman v Sydney Water Corporation was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute involved the plaintiff, Trapman, who sought to challenge several aspects of the Sydney Water Corporation’s operations and policies. Specifically, Trapman's claim included various allegations related to environmental, procedural, and regulatory issues, as outlined in the particulars of Exhibit 1.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether it had the jurisdiction to address the claims made by Trapman against the Sydney Water Corporation. The particulars of the claim were divided into two categories: those that fell within the Court’s jurisdiction and those that did not. Trapman sought to hold the Corporation accountable for a range of practices and decisions, but the Court had to determine if these fell within its legal purview.

In its judgment, the Court carefully considered the nature of each claim presented by Trapman. It was found that certain particulars, including those related to environmental protection, water quality, and compliance with statutory requirements, did indeed fall within the Court’s jurisdiction. Conversely, other claims, particularly those concerning internal operational decisions and certain administrative procedures, were deemed outside the Court’s jurisdictional scope. The Court's reasoning was grounded in the interpretation of statutory provisions and the delineation of judicial authority in relation to regulatory and administrative matters.

The Court’s final orders confirmed its jurisdiction over specific aspects of Trapman's claims while explicitly stating that it did not have the authority to address other particulars. This delineation was crucial in guiding the future proceedings of the case, ensuring that only valid claims were considered in the judicial process.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court has jurisdiction to deal with the matters contained in Particulars (a) (ii), (v), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x), (xi) and (xii) of Exhibit 1.

The Court does not have jurisdiction to deal with the matters contained in Particulars (a) (i), (iii), (iv) and (vi) of Exhibit 1.

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.