Pateras v State of Victoria [2022] FCA 238

Pateras v State of Victoria [2022] FCA 238

The Referee's Report was adopted in its entirety because it disclosed no error of principle, want or excess of jurisdiction, patent misapprehension of the evidence, perversity or manifest unreasonableness. The Referee correctly understood the inquiry, afforded procedural fairness, considered the material, set out the factual background, and applied the correct legal tests to the leave application and the second respondent's interlocutory application. The applicant did not establish a proper basis for rejecting or varying the Report, and the Referee was entitled on the material before her to reach her conclusions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure; Application Concerning Adoption, Variation or Rejection of a Referee's Report / Hearing on Whether to Adopt, Vary or Reject Registrar Legge's Referee Report Concerning the Applicant's Application for Leave Under S 46 Po(3 A)(a) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (cth) and the Second Respondent's Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Referee report adopted in its entirety; applicant's interlocutory application for leave dismissed; applicant ordered to pay costs; proceeding dismissed as against the second respondent.
Legal Topics
['referee Report' 'application for Leave Under S 46 Po(3 A)(a) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (cth)' 'summary Dismissal' 'removal of Party' 'costs']

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

Practice and Procedure; Application Concerning Adoption, Variation or Rejection of a Referee's Report / Hearing on Whether to Adopt, Vary or Reject Registrar Legge's Referee Report Concerning the Applicant's Application for Leave Under S 46 Po(3 A)(a) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (cth) and the Second Respondent's Interlocutory Application

  1. 1 ['Whether the Report of Registrar Legge dated 1 November 2021 should be adopted, varied or rejected' 'Whether the applicant should be granted leave pursuant to s 46PO(3A)(a) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth)' 'Whether the proceeding should be dismissed as against the second respondent under s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and r 26.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), or alternatively whether the second respondent should be removed as a party']

Ratio Decidendi

The Referee's Report was adopted in its entirety because it disclosed no error of principle, want or excess of jurisdiction, patent misapprehension of the evidence, perversity or manifest unreasonableness. The Referee correctly understood the inquiry, afforded procedural fairness, considered the material, set out the factual background, and applied the correct legal tests to the leave application and the second respondent's interlocutory application. The applicant did not establish a proper basis for rejecting or varying the Report, and the Referee was entitled on the material before her to reach her conclusions.

Court Disposition

Referee report adopted in its entirety; applicant's interlocutory application for leave dismissed; applicant ordered to pay costs; proceeding dismissed as against the second respondent.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to s 54A(3) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), the Report of Registrar Legge, dated 1 November 2021, be adopted in its entirety.' "The applicant's interlocutory application for leave to bring proceedings pursuant to s 46PO(3A)(a) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) be...