Pham v Commonwealth of Australia [2002] FCA 669

Pham v Commonwealth of Australia [2002] FCA 669

The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing, rested on his rights, and did not lack capacity to conduct proceedings; the substantive complaints against the Defence Force and University of Queensland duplicated those already dismissed, and the application lacked particularisation and merit against the Commission. The Court also lacked jurisdiction over any live complaint not terminated by the Commission.

Parties
Applicant: Charles Pham; First Respondent: Commonwealth of Australia (Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission); Second Respondent: Commonwealth of Australia (Defence Force); Third Respondent: University of Queensland
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Application Alleging Unlawful Discrimination / Final Determination on Application to Extend Time and Merits
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Racial Discrimination, Disability Discrimination, Extension of Time, Jurisdiction of Federal Court Under HREOC Act
Human Rights Discrimination Law Racial Discrimination Disability Discrimination Extension of Time Jurisdiction of Federal Court Under HREOC Act

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Pham

Applicant

Commonwealth of Australia (Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission)

First Respondent

Commonwealth of Australia (Defence Force)

Second Respondent

University of Queensland

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Alleging Unlawful Discrimination / Final Determination on Application to Extend Time and Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court should grant an extension of time for filing the discrimination application
  2. 2 Whether delay was adequately explained by illness and conduct of two proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear a complaint not terminated by the Commission

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing, rested on his rights, and did not lack capacity to conduct proceedings; the substantive complaints against the Defence Force and University of Queensland duplicated those already dismissed, and the application lacked particularisation and merit against the Commission. The Court also lacked jurisdiction over any live complaint not terminated by the Commission.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application filed on 4 March 2002 be dismissed.
  • The applicant pay the costs of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, the Commonwealth of Australia, and the University of Queensland of the proceeding.