Soares, Jesus Benedicto v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission & Anor [1998] FCA 444

Soares, Jesus Benedicto v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission & Anor [1998] FCA 444

The Commissioner took into account relevant factors including the applicant's health, prior adjournments, non-compliance with directions, attempts to obtain representation, the need for expedition, the seriousness of the allegations and the absence of any indication when a hearing could occur. It was open to the Commissioner to refuse a further adjournment without procedural unfairness. It was also not necessary, as a matter of procedural fairness, to summons the actual redundancy decision-makers in the absence of evidence suggesting their evidence would support the complaints. The Commissioner's dismissal of the complaints was therefore not shown to involve procedural unfairness.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 April 1998
Procedural Posture
Application for an Order of Review Pursuant to S 39 B(1 A) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth) / Final Judgment on Judicial Review Application
Outcome
Application for review dismissed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['procedural Fairness' 'natural Justice' 'refusal of Adjournment' 'racial Discrimination Complaint' 'disability Discrimination Complaint' 'commission Inquiry Powers' 'failure to Call Witnesses']
['administrative Law' 'discrimination Law' 'judicial Review'] ['procedural Fairness' 'natural Justice' 'refusal of Adjournment' 'racial Discrimination Complaint' 'disability Discrimination Complaint' 'commission Inquiry Powers' 'failure to Call Witnesses']

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 an Order of Review Pursuant to S 39 B(1 A) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth) / Final Judgment on Judicial Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether procedural unfairness resulted from the Commissioner's refusal to grant a further adjournment of the hearing." "Whether procedural unfairness resulted from the Commissioner's failure to adduce evidence from Bayer officers involved in the redundancy decision." "The nature and scope of the Commission's inquiry powers under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) and the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Commissioner took into account relevant factors including the applicant's health, prior adjournments, non-compliance with directions, attempts to obtain representation, the need for expedition, the seriousness of the allegations and the absence of any indication when a hearing could occur. It was open to the Commissioner to refuse a further adjournment without procedural unfairness. It was also not necessary, as a matter of procedural fairness, to summons the actual redundancy decision-makers in the absence of evidence suggesting their evidence would support the complaints. The Commissioner's dismissal of the complaints was therefore not shown to involve procedural unfairness.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for review is dismissed.' 'No order as to costs.']