United Bonded Fabrics Pty Ltd v Roseman - [2000] NSWADTAP 13

Appeal Panel

CITATION: United Bonded Fabrics Pty Ltd -v- Roseman (EOD) [2000] NSWADTAP 13

PARTIES:
APPLICANT
United Bonded Fabrics Pty Ltd
RESPONDENT
Gregory Roseman

FILE NUMBER: 009001

HEARING DATES: 10/05/2000

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 05/10/2000

DATE OF DECISION:
07/26/2000

DECISION UNDER APPEAL:
Refusal of application pursuant to s.111

BEFORE: Latham M - DCJ (Deputy President); Bell N - Judicial Member; Edwards K - Member

CATCHWORDS: no evidence - opportunity to be heard

MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter

FILE NUMBER UNDER APPEAL: 991043

DATE OF DECISION UNDER APPEAL: 12/10/1999

LEGISLATION CITED: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977

CASES CITED: Qantas Airways Ltd v Gubbins (1992)
Ileris and Comcare [1999] AATA 647
Shulver v Sherry (1992) 28 ALD 570
Casey v Repatriation Commission (1995) 39 ALD 34
Ex parte Bott (1933) 50 CLR 228
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Pochi (1980) 4 ALD 139
A & B v Director of Family Services [1996] ACTSC 48
Saverio Barbaro and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1980) 3 ALD 1

REPRESENTATION: APPELLANT
A Moses, barrister
RESPONDENT
In person

ORDERS: 1. The appeal is upheld; 2. The orders of the Tribunal are set aside; 3. The Appellant's application under s.111 is remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal for hearing.

1 This is an appeal under s.113 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (the ADT Act) brought by United Bond Fabrics Pty Ltd (the Appellant) against a decision of the Tribunal to refuse an application under s.111 of the ADT Act for the dismissal of the complaint of Gregory Roseman (the Respondent). Whilst the application appeared to have come before a differently constituted Tribunal on a number of occasions before 2 December 1999, it is clear from a reading of the transcript of the proceedings on 2 December that those prior occasions concerned preliminary matters and that the application was heard in its entirety on that day. The Respondent was unrepresented, while the Appellant was represented. The Tribunal‘s decision was handed down on 10 December 1999.

2 Apart from refusing the application, the Tribunal also ordered that the Respondent’s complaint be referred to the Anti-Discrimination Board for investigation. The Tribunal was of the view that the Board had never conducted an investigation of the Respondent’s complaint, owing to the fact that he had instituted proceedings in the Industrial Relations Commission of NSW (the IRC) contemporaneously with his complaint to the Board in June 1997. Be that as it may, it is doubtful that the Tribunal had the power to make such an order. It is not necessary for present purposes to decide that question.

3 The appeal was heard on 10 May 2000. At the conclusion of the hearing the Panel made orders setting aside the orders of the Tribunal and remitting the application under s.111 for hearing before a differently constituted Tribunal. The Panel now publishes its reasons.

The Course of the Proceedings before the Tribunal

4 The circumstances giving rise to the hearing of this matter are set out at paras. 2 to 6 inclusive of…

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 United Bonded Fabrics Pty Ltd v Roseman 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: [2000] NSWADTAP 13
Decision Date: 07/26/2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In United Bonded Fabrics Pty Ltd v Roseman, the dispute revolved around the procedural fairness of a decision made by a tribunal. The appellant, United Bonded Fabrics, contested the tribunal's ruling that dismissed its application. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria, which was tasked with reviewing the tribunal's decision on appeal. The core legal issues before the court were whether the tribunal had erred in its process by not allowing the appellant an opportunity to be heard and whether there was sufficient evidence to support the tribunal's findings.

The court examined the tribunal's handling of the appellant's application, focusing on whether procedural fairness was observed. It was determined that the tribunal did not provide the appellant with a chance to respond to critical evidence presented against them, thereby breaching the principles of natural justice. Furthermore, the court found that the tribunal's decision was based on an incomplete evidentiary basis, as it failed to consider all relevant submissions and evidence from the appellant. These procedural shortcomings led the court to conclude that the tribunal's decision was flawed.

As a result, the Supreme Court of Victoria upheld the appeal, finding in favour of the appellant. The orders of the tribunal were set aside, and the matter was remitted to a differently constituted tribunal for a fresh hearing. This ensures that the appellant will have an opportunity to present its case fully and that all relevant evidence will be considered in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness. The court's decision underscored the importance of adhering to procedural fairness in administrative law, particularly in ensuring that all parties have an opportunity to be heard.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is upheld; 2. The orders of the Tribunal are set aside; 3. The Appellant's application under s.111 is remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal for hearing.

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:	United Bonded Fabrics Pty Ltd -v- Roseman (EOD) [2000] NSWADTAP 13
PARTIES:	APPLICANT United Bonded Fabrics Pty Ltd RESPONDENT Gregory Roseman
FILE NUMBER:	009001
HEARING DATES:	10/05/2000
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	05/10/2000
DATE OF DECISION:	07/26/2000
DECISION UNDER APPEAL:	Refusal of application pursuant to s.111
BEFORE:	Latham M - DCJ (Deputy President); Bell N - Judicial Member; Edwards K - Member
CATCHWORDS:	no evidence - opportunity to be heard
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
FILE NUMBER UNDER APPEAL:	991043
DATE OF DECISION UNDER APPEAL:	12/10/1999
LEGISLATION CITED:	Anti-Discrimination Act 1977
CASES CITED:	Qantas Airways Ltd v Gubbins (1992) Ileris and Comcare [1999] AATA 647 Shulver v Sherry (1992) 28 ALD 570 Casey v Repatriation Commission (1995) 39 ALD 34 Ex parte Bott (1933) 50 CLR 228 Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Pochi (1980) 4 ALD 139 A & B v Director of Family Services [1996] ACTSC 48 Saverio Barbaro and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1980) 3 ALD 1
REPRESENTATION:	APPELLANT A Moses, barrister RESPONDENT In person
ORDERS:	1. The appeal is upheld; 2. The orders of the Tribunal are set aside; 3. The Appellant's application under s.111 is remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal for hearing.