FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Venerable Dr Peter Carlsson v Right Reverend John Ford [2019] FCA 912
File number: SAD 104 of 2019 Judge: BESANKO J Date of judgment: 14 June 2019 Catchwords: HUMAN RIGHTS — application for an interim injunction under s 46PO of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) — where the applicant alleges unlawful discrimination, defamation and malicious prosecution — where the Court cannot under s 46PO(8) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act require a person to give an undertaking as to damages as a condition of granting an interim injunction — whether the applicant has a prima facie case — consideration of the balance of convenience Legislation: Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) ss 46PH, 46PO, 46PP
Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) ss 5, 6
Cases cited: Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neill [2006] HCA 46; (2006) 227 CLR 57
Samsung Electronics Company Ltd v Apple Inc [2011] FCAFC 156; (2011) 217 FCR 238
Venerable Dr Peter Carlsson v Right Reverend John Ford [2019] FCA 584
Date of hearing: 5 June 2019 Registry: South Australia Division: General Division National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 37 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr J Wells QC Solicitor for the Applicant: Sykes Bidstrup Counsel for the Respondents: Mr R Harms Solicitor for the Respondents: MinterEllison ORDERS
SAD 104 of 2019 BETWEEN: THE VENERABLE DR PETER CARLSSON
Applicant
AND: THE RIGHT REVEREND JOHN FORD
First Respondent
THE SYNOD OF THE DIOCESE OF THE MURRAY OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH OF AUSTRALIA INC
Second Respondent
THE VERY REVEREND DAVID PRICE
Third Respondent
JUDGE:
BESANKO J
DATE OF ORDER:
14 JUNE 2019
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application for interim relief under s 46PO of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) be refused.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BESANKO J:
This is an application by the Venerable Dr Peter Carlsson against the Right Reverend John Ford and the Synod of the Diocese of the Murray of the Anglican Church of Australia Inc for an interim injunction under s 46PO of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) (the Act) pending the determination of the proceeding brought by Dr Carlsson. The interim relief sought which is in the following terms:
1.Pursuant to section 46PO(6) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth), the Court orders that, pending the determination of the within proceedings, the Respondents and each of them will not, whether by themselves, their employees, agents or otherwise:
1.1act on or otherwise give effect to the claimed termination of the licence held by the Applicant as Archdeacon of the Diocese of the Murray, including his general licence to exercise his ministry as priest in that Diocese;
1.2withhold the payment to the Applicant of all entitlements, currently pertaining to the position of the Archdeacon of the Diocese of the Murray and a licensed…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Venerable Dr Peter Carlsson v Right Reverend John Ford 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2019] FCA 912
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether Dr Carlsson had established a prima facie case for the relief sought, and whether the balance of convenience favoured the grant of an interim injunction. Additionally, the court had to consider whether it could require the respondent to give an undertaking as to damages as a condition of granting an interim injunction, as per section 46PO(8) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act.
The court held that Dr Carlsson had not established a prima facie case for the relief sought. It noted that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to support his allegations of unlawful discrimination, defamation and malicious prosecution. The court also found that the balance of convenience did not favour the grant of an interim injunction, as the potential harm to the respondent outweighed any harm that might be suffered by the applicant if the injunction was not granted. Furthermore, the court held that it could not require the respondent to give an undertaking as to damages as a condition of granting an interim injunction, as this was not permissible under section 46PO(8) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act.
Accordingly, the application for interim relief was refused. The court made an order that the application for interim relief under section 46PO of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) be refused. The entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application for interim relief under s 46PO of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) be refused.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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.