Woolstar Pty Ltd v Dumbrell (EOD) - [2001] NSWADTAP 5

Appeal Panel

CITATION: Woolstar Pty Ltd -v- Dumbrell (EOD) [2001] NSWADTAP 5

PARTIES: APPELLANT
Woolstar Pty Limited
RESPONDENT
Sidney John Dumbrell

FILE NUMBER: 999010

HEARING DATES: 30/06/2000

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 06/20/2000

DATE OF DECISION:
03/08/2001

DECISION UNDER APPEAL:
Refusal of application pursuant to s 111

BEFORE: Latham M - DCJ (Deputy President); Goode P - Judicial Member; McDonald O - Member

CATCHWORDS: adequacy of reasons - Dismissal of complaint - frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance - leave to extend to the merits - opportunity to be heard

MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter

FILE NUMBER UNDER APPEAL: 981020

DATE OF DECISION UNDER APPEAL: 06/16/1999

LEGISLATION CITED: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977

CASES CITED: United Bonded Fabrics Pty Ltd v Roseman [2000] NSWADTAP 13
Absolon v NSW TAFE Commission (1997) 75 IR 47
Absolon v NSW TAFE [1999] NSWCA 311
Reyes-Gonzalez v Sydney University of Technology [1998] NSWEOT
Figueira v St Vincent’s Hospital Ltd EOT 7 April 1997
Grant v John Grant & Sons Pty Ltd [1954] 91 CLR 112

REPRESENTATION: APPELLANT
I Neil, barrister
RESPONDENT
P Vartuli, solicitor

ORDERS: (1) The appeal is upheld.; (2) The orders of the Tribunal are set aside.; (3) The complaint is dismissed on the application of the appellant under s.111(1) of the Anti Discrimination Act 1977.

1 The appellant, Woolstar Pty. Ltd., appeals against a decision of the Tribunal of 16 June 1999 dismissing the appellant’s application under s111(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977. The respondent, Sidney Dumbrell, appeared unrepresented before the Tribunal on 16 June, being both the day of hearing and the date of the decision which was delivered extempore.
2 The history and nature of the complaint lodged with the Anti-Discrimination Board by Mr Dumbrell was explored before the Tribunal. The evidence on the hearing of the application consisted of two affidavits by Brett Andrew Boon, the appellant’s solicitor, dated 29 January 1999 and 16 June 1999, plus annexures, and a letter dated 29 January 1999 from the appellant’s solicitors to the respondent, which was by way of service of the affidavit of 29 January on the respondent.

3 There was no material difference between the contents of Mr Boon’s affidavits, other than that the later of the two annexed a complete copy of the President’s report referring the complaint to the Tribunal. The evidence established that the respondent had written to the Board on 9 March 1998 complaining that the appellant company had refused him employment because of the respondent’s disclosure of a previous workers compensation injury. The Board wrote to the appellant on 1 April 1998, attaching a copy of the respondent’s letter of complaint and advising the appellant that the Board was treating the complaint as one of discrimination on the grounds of a disability. The Board received a letter on 16 April from the appellant’s solicitors indicating they were preparing a response on behalf of their client. On 24 April, Mr Boon telephoned the Board and spoke to a Ms Levitan, who was at that time assigned to the…

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 Woolstar Pty Ltd v Dumbrell (EOD) 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: [2001] NSWADTAP 5
Decision Date: 03/08/2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Woolstar Pty Ltd v Dumbrell, the primary issue was the dismissal of a complaint by Woolstar against the respondent, Dumbrell. The dispute was heard and decided by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales, and subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central legal issue revolved around the adequacy of the reasons provided by the Tribunal for dismissing the complaint as frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance. Woolstar contended that the Tribunal failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision, thereby depriving it of a fair opportunity to respond to the complaint.

The court was required to determine whether the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the complaint without a full hearing on the merits was justified, and whether Woolstar was denied a fair opportunity to be heard. The court examined the principles established in previous cases such as Re Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs; Ex parte Teoh, which emphasize the importance of procedural fairness and the necessity for reasons when decisions impact legal rights. The court found that the Tribunal's decision lacked sufficient reasoning, as it did not adequately address Woolstar's arguments or provide a clear basis for concluding that the complaint was frivolous or misconceived.

Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the appeal was upheld, the orders of the Tribunal were set aside, and the complaint was dismissed. The court determined that the Tribunal's failure to provide adequate reasons for its decision resulted in a miscarriage of justice and a denial of procedural fairness to Woolstar. The appeal process allowed Woolstar to present its arguments fully, leading to the ultimate dismissal of the complaint under section 111(1) of the Anti Discrimination Act 1977.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The appeal is upheld.; (2) The orders of the Tribunal are set aside.; (3) The complaint is dismissed on the application of the appellant under s.111(1) of the Anti Discrimination Act 1977.

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.

CITATION:	Woolstar Pty Ltd -v- Dumbrell (EOD) [2001] NSWADTAP 5
PARTIES:	APPELLANT Woolstar Pty Limited RESPONDENT Sidney John Dumbrell
FILE NUMBER:	999010
HEARING DATES:	30/06/2000
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	06/20/2000
DATE OF DECISION:	03/08/2001
DECISION UNDER APPEAL:	Refusal of application pursuant to s 111
BEFORE:	Latham M - DCJ (Deputy President); Goode P - Judicial Member; McDonald O - Member
CATCHWORDS:	adequacy of reasons - Dismissal of complaint - frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance - leave to extend to the merits - opportunity to be heard
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
FILE NUMBER UNDER APPEAL:	981020
DATE OF DECISION UNDER APPEAL:	06/16/1999
LEGISLATION CITED:	Anti-Discrimination Act 1977
CASES CITED:	United Bonded Fabrics Pty Ltd v Roseman [2000] NSWADTAP 13 Absolon v NSW TAFE Commission (1997) 75 IR 47 Absolon v NSW TAFE [1999] NSWCA 311 Reyes-Gonzalez v Sydney University of Technology [1998] NSWEOT Figueira v St Vincent’s Hospital Ltd EOT 7 April 1997 Grant v John Grant & Sons Pty Ltd [1954] 91 CLR 112
REPRESENTATION:	APPELLANT I Neil, barrister RESPONDENT P Vartuli, solicitor
ORDERS:	(1) The appeal is upheld.; (2) The orders of the Tribunal are set aside.; (3) The complaint is dismissed on the application of the appellant under s.111(1) of the Anti Discrimination Act 1977.