Appeal Panel
CITATION: Veloskey & Anor -v- Karagiannakis & Ors (EOD) [2002] NSWADTAP 18 PARTIES: 1. APPELLANT
Michael Veloskey
2. APPELLANT
Victor Bivell
1. RESPONDENT
George Karagiannakis
2. RESPONDENT
Hellenic Council of NSW
3. RESPONDENT
The Australian Hellenic Council
4. RESPONDENT
Costas Vertzayias
5. RESPONDENT
Akis Haralabopoulos
6. RESPONDENT
K Publications Pty LtdFILE NUMBER: 009002 HEARING DATES: 26/10/2000 SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 10/26/2000 DATE OF DECISION:
06/27/2002DECISION UNDER APPEAL:
Aegean Macedonian Association of Australia and Ors -v- Karagiannakis & Ors [1999] NSW ADT 130BEFORE: Latham M - DCJ (Deputy President); Ireland G - Judicial Member; Edwards K - Member CATCHWORDS: adequacy of reasons - statutory interpretation MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter FILE NUMBER UNDER APPEAL: 259 of 1996, 261 of 1996, 262 of 1996, 263 of 1996 and 265 of 1996 DATE OF DECISION UNDER APPEAL: 12/10/1999 LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Anti-Discrimination Act 1977CASES CITED: Moxon v Westbus Pty Ltd [2000] NSWADTAP 12
Absolon v NSW TAFE [1999] NSWCA 311
Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247
Denver Chemical Manufacturing Co. v. Commissioner of Taxation (N.S.W.) (1949) 79 C.L.R.296
Sullivan v. Department of Transport (1978) 20 A.L.R.323
The Repatriation Commission v O’Brien (1984-1985) 155 CLR 422
Cochrane & Anor v Hannaford [1999] NSWCA 371
Athens & Anor v Randwick City Council [2002] NWCA 83
Harou-Sourdon v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd [1994] EOC 92-604
Wagga Wagga Aboriginal Action Group v Eldridge [1995] EOC 92-701
R v D & E Marinkovic [1996] NSWEOT (19/9/96)
Hellenic Council of NSW v Apoleski and the Macedonian Youth Association [1997] NSWEOT (25/9/97)
Kazak v John Fairfax Publications Ltd [2000] NSWADT 77
Western Aboriginal Legal Service Ltd v Jones & Anor [2000] NSWADT 102
Anderson v Thompson [2001] NSWADT 11
Burns v Dye [2002] NSWADT 32
Malco & Ors v Massaris & Ors [1998] NSWEOT (12/2/98)
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Waters v Public Transport Corporation (1993) 173 CLR 359 IW v City of Perth (1999) 91 ALJR 943
Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158
Rivkin v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2002] NSWCA 87
Tenzin Dhayakpa v The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1995) 62 FCR 556REPRESENTATION: APPELLANTS
J Oakley, barrister
RESPONDENTS
J Conomos, barrister for Respondents1, 5 and 6
C Vertzayias, solicitor for Resppondents 2 and 4
No appearance for or on behalf of Respondent 3ORDERS: 1. Appeal allowed; 2. Decision of the Tribunal below set aside; 3. Complaint dismissed.
1 The Appellants appeal against a decision of the Tribunal of 10 December 1999 dismissing a complaint of racial vilification under s 20C of the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 (the AD Act). The complaint by the Appellants at first instance concerned an article published in "O Kosmos" on 19 April 1994, which was written by the First Respondent, Mr Karagiannakis.
2 The written and oral submissions on the appeal essentially turned upon two grounds, namely, that the Tribunal erred at law by failing to comply with…
Continue reading Veloskey v Karagiannakis
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Veloskey v Karagiannakis [2002] NSWADTAP 18
- Case
- [2002] NSWADTAP 18
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Veloskey v Karagiannakis involved a dispute concerning the adequacy of reasons provided by the First Member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) in setting aside a decision of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The applicant, Mr Veloskey, challenged the AAT's decision to dismiss his complaint that the delegate's decision to cancel his visa was invalid for insufficient reasons. The respondent, Mr Karagiannakis, was the delegate who had originally cancelled the visa.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the AAT's reasons for setting aside the delegate's decision were adequate. The court needed to determine if the AAT's reasons were sufficient to allow for meaningful judicial review and whether they demonstrated that the AAT had properly exercised its discretion in setting aside the delegate's decision. Additionally, the court had to interpret the relevant statutory provisions to ascertain the standard of review applicable to the AAT's decision.
The court found that the AAT's reasons were inadequate as they did not clearly articulate the basis upon which the AAT concluded that the delegate's reasons were insufficient. The court held that the AAT's reasons did not demonstrate a proper exercise of its discretion. The court also emphasised the importance of adequate reasons in administrative law, which allows for effective judicial review and ensures transparency and accountability in decision-making processes. The court concluded that the AAT had failed to meet the standard of review required by the applicable statutory provisions. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the decision of the AAT was set aside, and the complaint was dismissed.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the AAT's reasons for setting aside the delegate's decision were adequate. The court needed to determine if the AAT's reasons were sufficient to allow for meaningful judicial review and whether they demonstrated that the AAT had properly exercised its discretion in setting aside the delegate's decision. Additionally, the court had to interpret the relevant statutory provisions to ascertain the standard of review applicable to the AAT's decision.
The court found that the AAT's reasons were inadequate as they did not clearly articulate the basis upon which the AAT concluded that the delegate's reasons were insufficient. The court held that the AAT's reasons did not demonstrate a proper exercise of its discretion. The court also emphasised the importance of adequate reasons in administrative law, which allows for effective judicial review and ensures transparency and accountability in decision-making processes. The court concluded that the AAT had failed to meet the standard of review required by the applicable statutory provisions. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the decision of the AAT was set aside, and the complaint was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal allowed; 2. Decision of the Tribunal below set aside; 3. Complaint dismissed.
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.