FRASER v PRESIDENT, ANTI-DISCRIMINATION BOARD & 3 ORS [2000] NSWSC 1083

FRASER v PRESIDENT, ANTI-DISCRIMINATION BOARD & 3 ORS [2000] NSWSC 1083

The President was entitled to consider both the plaintiff's explanation for delay and possible prejudice to the University and the third defendant when deciding whether good cause existed under s 88(4). The plaintiff did not establish denial of procedural fairness because she had ample opportunity to put material before the President and to respond to the matters sought from the University and the third defendant. The challenged considerations were relevant, no relevant matter was shown to have been ignored, and the decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable. The application therefore failed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 November 2000
Procedural Posture
Application for Orders in the Nature of Prerogative Relief Under S 65 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 / Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the defendants.
Legal Topics
['sexual Harassment Complaint' 'complaint Lodged Out of Time' 'good Cause Under S 88(4) Anti Discrimination Act 1977' 'procedural Fairness' 'relevant and Irrelevant Considerations' 'wednesbury Unreasonableness']
['administrative Law' 'anti Discrimination Law'] ['sexual Harassment Complaint' 'complaint Lodged Out of Time' 'good Cause Under S 88(4) Anti Discrimination Act 1977' 'procedural Fairness' 'relevant and Irrelevant Considerations' 'wednesbury Unreasonableness']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Orders in the Nature of Prerogative Relief Under S 65 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the President improperly exercised the discretion under s 88(4) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 by declining to accept the plaintiff's complaint out of time." 'Whether the President failed to take into account relevant matters or took into account irrelevant matters.' 'Whether the plaintiff was denied natural justice or procedural fairness.' "Whether the President's decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable decision maker could have made it."]

Ratio Decidendi

The President was entitled to consider both the plaintiff's explanation for delay and possible prejudice to the University and the third defendant when deciding whether good cause existed under s 88(4). The plaintiff did not establish denial of procedural fairness because she had ample opportunity to put material before the President and to respond to the matters sought from the University and the third defendant. The challenged considerations were relevant, no relevant matter was shown to have been ignored, and the decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable. The application therefore failed.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the defendants.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the defendants.']