Tsoi v Savransky and Anor (No.2)

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

TSOI v SAVRANSKY & ANOR (No.2) [2005] FMCA 195

HUMAN RIGHTS – Application for adjournment – obligation to take into consideration the position of respondent.

Sex Discrimination Act 1984
Legal Aid Commission Act 1979 (NSW), s.57

Tsoi v Savransky [2004] FMCA 879

Applicant: NATALIA TSOI

First Respondent: IVAN SAVRANSKY

Second Respondent: SHIPTRON PTY LTD
T/A ISBJ DENTURE CLINIC

File Number: SYG2290 of 2003

Judgment of: Raphael FM

Hearing Date: 25 February 2005

Date of Last Submission: 25 February 2005

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 25 February 2005

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms T Evers

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr D Thiering

ORDERS

1. Application for adjournment dismissed.

2. Costs reserved.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG2290 of 2003

NATALIA TSOI

Applicant

And

IVAN SAVRANSKY

First Respondent

SHIPTRON PTY LTD T/A ISBJ DENTURE CLINIC

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. There comes before me today an application by the applicant in certain proceedings under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 for an adjournment of a case which is due to commence on Monday. 

2. The history of this case is unfortunate.  The proceedings were commenced by way of application filed on 28 October 2003.  They relate to an incident which allegedly took place in December 2001.  The matter, as was required under the legislation, was considered by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, and the reference to that Commission was determined on 30 September 2003.  Since the matter has been in this court there have been a number of requests for adjournments all of which were based upon the applicant's inability to obtain legal assistance.  The applicant had applied for legal aid and her application was refused.  She had appealed against that refusal.  She had also sought pro bono assistance through the Law Society of New South Wales but they have declined to provide it on the grounds that she must have been refused legal aid before that occurs.  She has managed to approach a number of independent legal practitioners some of whom have provided her with assistance but no one has been prepared to act as her advocate in the proceedings.

3. The case was due to be heard on 23 November 2004. But on 18 November 2004 a further application for an adjournment was made citing in support s.57 of the Legal Aid Commission Act 1979 (NSW).

   
   

   I gave judgment in this matter and my judgment is reported as Tsoi v Savransky [2004] FMCA 879. I noted the unfortunate history of the case. At [15] I said:

   [15] I have no idea how long the resolution of the complaint to the Health Care Complaints Commission will take but it may be a considerable time.  In the meantime the respondent to these proceedings remains with serious allegations hanging over his head which he has at all times been prepared to defend.  Through his solicitor the respondent has complied with the orders of the Court and has patiently accepted adjournments and delays instigated by the applicant who…