“Y” v Australian Postal Corporation

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

“Y” v Australian Postal Corporation [2005] FCA 1396

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – transfer to Federal Magistrates Court

Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth) s 39

“Y” v AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

VID 1474 of 2005

“Y” v HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION and

AUSTRALIA POST

VG 21 of 1998

FINKELSTEIN J
29 SEPTEMBER 2005
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VID 1474 of 2005

BETWEEN:	“Y” Applicant
AND:	AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION Respondent

JUDGE:	FINKELSTEIN J
DATE:	29 SEPTEMBER 2005
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The publication of the applicant’s name be forbidden.
2. The title to the proceeding and any documentation in the proceeding hereafter refer to the applicant as “Y”.
3. The application be transferred to the Federal Magistrates Court.

Note:  Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VG 21 of 1998

BETWEEN:	“Y” Applicant
AND:	HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION and AUSTRALIA POST Respondents

JUDGE:	FINKELSTEIN J
DATE:	29 SEPTEMBER 2005
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The complaint the subject of the decision of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission given on 23 July 1996 be referred to the Commission for further consideration.

Note:  Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VID 1474 of 2004

BETWEEN:	“Y” Applicant
AND:	AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION Respondent
VG 21 of 1998

AND BETWEEN:	“Y” Applicant
AND:	HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION and AUSTRALIA POST Respondents

JUDGE:	FINKELSTEIN J
DATE:	29 SEPTEMBER 2005
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. Y, as he has been designated, is back in the Federal Court.  He is here in two separate proceedings.  One is a proceeding that has been transferred from the Federal Magistrates Court.  The other is a proceeding that had been commenced in the Federal Court which I thought, wrongly as it turns out, had been disposed of by final orders.

2. To understand what has given rise to this situation it is necessary to recount some history.  Y suffers from a disability.  The medical profession cannot agree on the precise nature of that disability, but it has been described by some (and disputed by others) as paranoid psychosis or as residual schizophrenia.  His disability notwithstanding, Y is an intelligent person.  He has a Bachelor of Arts degree from a well-known university and has completed other courses, at university and elsewhere. 

3. The immediate cause of the two proceedings is Y’s difficulty in obtaining employment. Many years ago Y applied to Australia Post for a job as a postal delivery officer (a postman) or as a mail officer. He was informed that he would never be employed by Australia Post. Y alleged that in making the decision that he never be employed by it, Australia Post discriminated against him contrary to s 15 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth). Broadly…