Von Stalheim v Anti Discrimination Tribunal and KPMG; Von Stalheim v Anti Discrimination Tribunal, H M Wood and Statewide Independent Wholesalers

The cases before the court involved two separate applications by Von Stalheim, a former employee, seeking judicial review of decisions made by the Anti Discrimination Tribunal. The first application was against the Anti Discrimination Tribunal and KPMG, while the second was against the Anti Discrimination Tribunal, H M Wood, and Statewide Independent Wholesalers. The primary dispute revolved around the timing of the applications for judicial review and the tribunal's jurisdiction to hear the complaints.

The central legal issues that the court had to address were whether the applications for judicial review were made within the appropriate time frame and whether there were grounds to extend the time limit. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the tribunal had the jurisdiction to hear the complaints and whether there was an arguable case that the tribunal had acted beyond its jurisdiction. This latter issue required consideration of the principles governing judicial review and the merits of the applications.

In assessing these issues, the court emphasised the importance of timely applications for judicial review and the stringent criteria for extending time limits. The court noted that the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the complaints, but it also considered whether there was an arguable case for the nature of the review by the tribunal. The court concluded that while the applications were late, the tribunal's failure to comply with procedural fairness warranted consideration. Ultimately, the court decided that the applications should be allowed, permitting the tribunal's decisions to be reviewed on the merits.

The final orders of the court were that the applications for judicial review were granted, allowing the tribunal's decisions to be reviewed. The court also directed that the matter be remitted to the tribunal for further consideration, taking into account the procedural fairness issues identified. This decision provided a pathway for Von Stalheim to challenge the tribunal's decisions on the merits, despite the initial procedural delays.