Zenon Zoltaszek v Downer EDI Engineering Pty Limited

[2012] HCASL 42

ZENON ZOLTASZEK
v
DOWNER EDI ENGINEERING PTY LIMITED
[2012] HCASL 42
S260/2011

1. The applicant brought proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Court (Barnes FM) under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) (as it then was) alleging discrimination and harassment on the ground of disability by the respondent, Downer EDI Engineering Pty Limited ("Downer"). The applicant was a technician who carried out work installing and maintaining Foxtel satellite equipment under a contract between Impowest Pty Ltd, of which he was the sole director and shareholder, and Downer. The applicant alleged that he suffered from back pain, tendonitis and an injury to his left elbow, and that these constituted a disability within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)[1].  He said that he had asked Downer to place him on light duties and that it had failed to do so.  He claimed to be the subject of direct and indirect discrimination in employment or, alternatively, as a contract worker[2]. 

   [1]Section 4 defines "disability" to include the malfunction, malformation or disfigurement of a part of the person's body.

   [2]Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth), ss 15, 17.

2. The applicant was unrepresented before Barnes FM.  Her Honour dismissed his claims. 

3. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully to the Federal Court of Australia (Flick J).

4. The applicant applies for special leave to appeal from the orders of the Federal Court.  The gravamen of the proposed challenge is that the hearing before Barnes FM was not fair because the applicant did not have a grant of legal aid.  That circumstance does not provide an arguable basis for a successful challenge to the decision.  Moreover, nothing in the material filed in support of the application casts doubt on Flick J's conclusion that the applicant's lack of legal representation did not deprive him of a meaningful opportunity to have his claims heard.  If special leave to appeal were granted the appeal would have no prospects of success. 

5. The application for special leave was reinstated by order of Hayne J on 14 December 2011.  His Honour ordered that the costs of the reinstatement application be costs in the application for special leave.

6. The application is dismissed.

7. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application with costs.

J.D. Heydon
29 February 2012 V.M. Bell