Reisner v Bridge Housing Ltd [2021] FCA 279

Reisner v Bridge Housing Ltd [2021] FCA 279

The Federal Court lacks jurisdiction to grant interim relief under s 46PP of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) because no complaint had been accepted or was pending before the Commission. None of the Applicant’s additional procedural or substantive interlocutory applications justified reconstitution of the Court, referral for Pro Bono Counsel, or the grant of a stay.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Relief / Judgment on Interlocutory Applications and Substantive Application
Outcome
All applications dismissed/refused, costs reserved
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Relief' 'jurisdiction' 'reasonable Apprehension of Bias' 'pro Bono Legal Assistance' 'human Rights Commission Complaint' 'stay of Proceedings']
['administrative Law' 'human Rights Law'] ['interlocutory Relief' 'jurisdiction' 'reasonable Apprehension of Bias' 'pro Bono Legal Assistance' 'human Rights Commission Complaint' 'stay of Proceedings']

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 Interlocutory Relief / Judgment on Interlocutory Applications and Substantive Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear an application under s 46PP of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) in the absence of a pending complaint' 'Whether there is a reasonable apprehension of bias requiring reconstitution of the Court' 'Whether Pro Bono legal assistance should be granted' 'Whether a stay of proceedings should be ordered']

Ratio Decidendi

The Federal Court lacks jurisdiction to grant interim relief under s 46PP of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) because no complaint had been accepted or was pending before the Commission. None of the Applicant’s additional procedural or substantive interlocutory applications justified reconstitution of the Court, referral for Pro Bono Counsel, or the grant of a stay.

Court Disposition

All applications dismissed/refused, costs reserved

Orders

  • ['The application for a stay is refused.' 'The application for the reconstitution of the Court is rejected.' 'The application for the appointment of Pro Bono Counsel is rejected.' 'The Application under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) filed on 22 October 2020 is dismissed.']