Simplot Australia Pty Ltd t/as Edgell-Birds Eye v Commissioner Robert Nettlefold (Constituting the Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission) & Anor [1996] FCA 718

Simplot Australia Pty Ltd t/as Edgell-Birds Eye v Commissioner Robert Nettlefold (Constituting the Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission) & Anor [1996] FCA 718

The complaint complied with s.50 because it was a written complaint alleging that Edgell had done an act unlawful under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), and s.50 did not require the complaint to set out details sufficient to show on its face an unlawful act. The Act's scheme permitted the Commissioner and HREOC to inquire into a complaint and later decide whether it related to an unlawful act. At the preliminary stage, before evidence was adduced, it was open to the Inquiry Commissioner not to be satisfied under s.79 that the complaint related to an act that was not unlawful, and no jurisdictional or other reviewable error of law was established.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 August 1996
Procedural Posture
Application Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) and S.39 B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth) to Prohibit Further Inquiry Into a Sex Discrimination Complaint / Judicial Review Application After the Inquiry Commissioner Dismissed the Applicant's S.79 Application as a Preliminary Issue
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Jurisdiction' 'sex Discrimination Act Complaint Requirements' 'summary Dismissal of Complaint' 'discrimination Involving Contract Work or Contract for Services' 'error of Law']
['administrative Law' 'sex Discrimination'] ['human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Jurisdiction' 'sex Discrimination Act Complaint Requirements' 'summary Dismissal of Complaint' 'discrimination Involving Contract Work or Contract for Services' 'error of Law']

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 Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) and S.39 B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth) to Prohibit Further Inquiry Into a Sex Discrimination Complaint / Judicial Review Application After the Inquiry Commissioner Dismissed the Applicant's S.79 Application as a Preliminary Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a complaint lodged under s.50 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) conferred jurisdiction or power on the Commission to conduct an inquiry into the complaint.' 'Whether the Inquiry Commissioner erred in law in declining to exercise the power to dismiss the complaint under s.79 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth).' "Whether discrimination on the ground of a woman's sex could be alleged where the disputed transportation contract was awarded to a company other than the company offered or nominated by her."]

Ratio Decidendi

The complaint complied with s.50 because it was a written complaint alleging that Edgell had done an act unlawful under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), and s.50 did not require the complaint to set out details sufficient to show on its face an unlawful act. The Act's scheme permitted the Commissioner and HREOC to inquire into a complaint and later decide whether it related to an unlawful act. At the preliminary stage, before evidence was adduced, it was open to the Inquiry Commissioner not to be satisfied under s.79 that the complaint related to an act that was not unlawful, and no jurisdictional or other reviewable error of law was established.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The Application be dismissed.' 'The applicant pay the taxed costs of the respondents of and incidental to the application.']