Vanniasinghe, Anton Hillary v The President, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission

[1998] FCA 1263

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	QG 25  of   1998

BETWEEN:

ANTON HILLARY VANNIASINGHE
APPLICANT

AND:

THE PRESIDENT, HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
FIRST RESPONDENT

AUSTRALIAN POULTRY LTD [STEGGLES LIMITED]
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

DOWSETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

22 SEPTEMBER 1998

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The motion is dismissed.

1. The applicant is to pay the second respondent's costs of the motion.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	QG 25 of 1998

BETWEEN:

ANTON HILLARY VANNIASINGHE
APPLICANT

AND:

THE PRESIDENT, HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
FIRST RESPONDENT

AUSTRALIAN POULTRY LTD [STEGGLES LIMITED]
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	DOWSETT J
DATE:	22 SEPTEMBER 1998
PLACE:	BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an application by Anton Hillary Vanniasinghe for orders suspending the operation of an order made by Kiefel J refusing his application for an extension of time in which to bring an application under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1997 and the order for payment of costs made by her Honour in those proceedings.  The applicant claims that he was subjected to discriminatory conduct by the second respondent.  He commenced proceedings in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission where he was unsuccessful and sought judicial review of that decision. 

Unfortunately, by the time he made that application, he was substantially out of time and so it was necessary that he obtain an order in his favour extending time for the making of the application.  The application for extension of time was the substantive issue which was before Kiefel J in the proceedings which led to the orders presently under challenge.  Her Honour concluded that no sufficient explanation had been offered for the delay and that in any event, the decision made in the Commission was clearly correct and that there was no basis for the allegation by the present applicant that he had suffered any damage as a result of discriminatory conduct.  In those circumstances, her Honour dismissed his application and ordered that he pay the costs.

He has appealed against her Honour's decision, as he is entitled to do, and brings the present application, as I have said, to suspend the operation of the order dismissing the application and to suspend the order for payment of costs.  Insofar as the substantive order is concerned, it was merely an order refusing his application and so it has no substantive operation which would call for its being stayed.  As to the order for costs, the only grounds for staying that order are firstly, that the applicant cannot pay them and secondly, that he has appealed against the order.  Neither matter, by itself, is sufficient to lead the Court to deprive the successful second respondent of the benefit of the order for costs nor, in my view, does the combined effect of those two considerations lead to that conclusion.

In the circumstances, I can see no basis for staying the order for costs.  The application will be dismissed with costs.

I certify that this and the preceding one (1) pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dowsett.

Associate:

Dated:             6 October 1998

Applicant appeared in person:
Counsel for the Second Respondent:	Ms H. Davis
Solicitor for the Second  Respondent:	Dunhill Madden Butler
Date of Hearing:	22 September 1998
Date of Judgment:	22 September 1998