Vijayakumar v Qantas Airways Limited - [2008] FMCA 339

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VIJAYAKUMAR v QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED

[2008] FMCA 339

HUMAN RIGHTS – Interlocutory application – Amicus Curiae – leave to appear Amicus Curiae.

Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth), s. 46PV
Federal Magistrates Court Rules, r.41.05

Access for All Alliance (Hervey Bay) Inc v Hervey Bay City Council [2006] FCA 1214 followed
Levy v State of Victoria (189) CLR 579 referred to

Applicant:

TONY MAHESPARAM VIJAYAKUMAR

Respondent:

QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED

File Number:

SYG1812 of 2007

Judgment of:

Scarlett FM

Hearing date:

11 March 2008

Date of Last Submission:

11 March 2008

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

11 March 2008

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr Batley

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Legal Aid Commission of NSW

Counsel for the Respondent:

Ms Eastman

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Minter Ellison

Counsel for Amicus Curiae:

Mr Lenehan

Amicus Curiae:

Acting Disability Discrimination Commissioner

ORDERS

The Acting Disability Discrimination Commissioner be granted leave to appear as amicus curiae in the proceedings and to make oral submissions.
The Applicant is to file and serve any further submissions by 30 April 2008.
The Acting Disability Discrimination Commissioner is to file a written submission in relation to the oral submissions sought to be made in these proceedings by 30 April 2008.
The application is listed for further hearing on Wednesday 14 May 2008 at 10:15am before Federal Magistrate Scarlett in Court 7B, Level 7, John Maddison Tower, 88 Goulburn Street, Sydney NSW.
Costs of today are reserved.
The Acting Disability Discrimination Commissioner file and serve a Notice of Address for Service by 24 March 2008.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG1812 of 2007

TONY MAHESPARAM VIJAYAKUMAR

Applicant

And

QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Application

The Acting Disability Discrimination Commissioner seeks leave to appear as Amicus Curiae in these proceedings, by means of a Notice of Motion filed on 6^th February 2008. The Notice of Motion is supported by an affidavit of the Acting Disability Discrimination Commissioner, Mr Innes, affirmed on 4^th February 2008. The Commissioner seeks leave to make submissions orally and in writing in relation to legal issues arising out of these proceedings.
As was said by Collier J in Access for All Alliance (Hervey Bay) Inc v Hervey Bay City Council[1], the Court should exercise caution in considering applications made by those who seek to be heard as amicus curiae. Section 46PV(1) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 to which I shall refer as ‘the HREOC Act) gives the Commissioner the function of assisting the Court as amicus curiae in:
(a)proceedings in which the Commissioner, as a special-purpose Commissioner” thinks that the orders sought, or likely to be sought, may affect to a significant extent the human rights of persons who are not parties to the proceedings;
(b)proceedings that, in the opinion of the special-purpose Commissioner, have significant implications for the administration of the relevant Act or Acts; and
(c)proceedings that…

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 Vijayakumar v Qantas Airways Limited 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: [2008] FMCA 339
Decision Date: 11 March 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vijayakumar v Qantas Airways Limited was a case before the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, involving the Applicant, Vijayakumar, and the Respondent, Qantas Airways Limited. The dispute centred on allegations of disability discrimination against the Applicant by the airline, as well as associated claims under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992. The Applicant sought to have the Acting Disability Discrimination Commissioner appear as amicus curiae in the proceedings, allowing the Commissioner to make oral submissions and provide expert advice on the issues at hand. The legal issues before the Court included whether the Acting Disability Discrimination Commissioner should be granted leave to appear as amicus curiae and, if so, the conditions under which this would occur. Additionally, the Court had to determine deadlines for the filing and service of further submissions by the parties involved.

The Court found that granting leave for the Acting Disability Discrimination Commissioner to appear as amicus curiae was appropriate, considering the complexity of the disability discrimination issues and the benefit that the Commissioner's expertise would bring to the proceedings. The Court was satisfied that the Acting Disability Discrimination Commissioner would be able to provide valuable insights and assistance to both the Court and the parties involved. Furthermore, the Court set deadlines for the filing and service of further submissions by the Applicant and the Acting Disability Discrimination Commissioner. The Court emphasised the importance of efficient and timely communication between the parties to ensure a fair and effective resolution of the case. The application was listed for further hearing on 14 May 2008, with costs of the hearing reserved. The Acting Disability Discrimination Commissioner was also required to file and serve a Notice of Address for Service by 24 March 2008.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Acting Disability Discrimination Commissioner be granted leave to appear as amicus curiae in the proceedings and to make oral submissions.

The Applicant is to file and serve any further submissions by 30 April 2008.

The Acting Disability Discrimination Commissioner is to file a written submission in relation to the oral submissions sought to be made in these proceedings by 30 April 2008.

The application is listed for further hearing on Wednesday 14 May 2008 at 10:15am before Federal Magistrate Scarlett in Court 7B, Level 7, John Maddison Tower, 88 Goulburn Street, Sydney NSW.

Costs of today are reserved.

The Acting Disability Discrimination Commissioner file and serve a Notice of Address for Service by 24 March 2008.

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.