Vanniasinghe v President, Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission [1999] FCA 146 (15 February 1999)

Last Updated: 3 March 1999

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Vanniasinghe v President, Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission [1999] FCA 146

ANTON HILLARY VANNIASINGHE v THE PRESIDENT, HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION AND AUSTRALIAN POULTRY LTD (STEGGLES LIMITED)

QG78 OF 1998

COOPER, TAMBERLIN AND DOWSETT JJ

BRISBANE

15 FEBRUARY 1999

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	QG78 OF 1998

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	ANTON HILLARY VANNIASINGHE Appellant
AND:	THE PRESIDENT, HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION First Respondent AUSTRALIAN POULTRY LTD (STEGGLES LIMITED) Second Respondent
JUDGES:	COOPER, TAMBERLIN AND DOWSETT JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	15 FEBRUARY 1999
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the second respondent's costs to be taxed if not agreed.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	QG78 OF 1998

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	ANTON HILLARY VANNIASINGHE Appellant
AND:	THE PRESIDENT, HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION First Respondent AUSTRALIAN POULTRY LTD (STEGGLES LIMITED) Second Respondent

JUDGES:	COOPER, TAMBERLIN AND DOWSETT JJ
DATE:	15 FEBRUARY 1999
PLACE:	BRISBANE

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1 The appellant, by application filed on 27 March 1998, sought review of a decision of the President of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission of 11 June 1996, which decision confirmed an earlier decision of the Race Discrimination Commissioner not to inquire into a complaint of the appellant on the grounds that the complaint lacked substance.

2 The application to this Court was made more than twenty months out of time. The second respondent moved to have the application dismissed as incompetent. Whether or not an application for extension of time was made on 26 June 1998, her Honour Justice Kiefel treated the application as one for an extension of time. Her Honour refused to extend the time on two grounds: firstly, the unexplained delay in taking proceedings; secondly, that the application had no reasonable prospects of success because her Honour was of the view that there was no demonstrable error of law in the President's decision.

3 The appellant has given further explanation for the delay to this Court. The error which the applicant seeks to rely upon in order to obtain the setting aside of the refusal of an extension of time, is that her Honour relied upon the decision of the President of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, which decision was in error. In fact, her Honour reviewed all of the material and concluded that there was no causal link shown between the racial taunts and the employment circumstances. In that case she concluded that the President was not in error. The decision of her Honour was open on the material before her.

4 There is no basis for this Court to interfere. In my view the appeal should be dismissed, with costs.

5 TAMBERLIN J: Yes, I agree with the reasons of his Honour, the presiding Judge, and with the orders that he has indicated should be made.

6 DOWSETT J: I also agree

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Cooper, the Honourable Justice Tamberlin and the Honourable Justice Dowsett.

Associate:

Dated: 15 February 1999

Appellant in Person:	Anton Hillary Vanniasinghe
Solicitor for the Second Respondent:	Dunhill Madden Butler
Date of Hearing:	15 February 1999
Date of Judgment:	15 February 1999