United Bonded Fabrics Pty Ltd -v- Roseman (EOD) [2000] NSWADTAP 13

United Bonded Fabrics Pty Ltd -v- Roseman (EOD) [2000] NSWADTAP 13

The Tribunal erred in law by treating submissions as evidence and by making a central finding about the Appellant's intention that was not supported by the documentary evidence and had not been put to the Appellant. The Deed of Release, the IRC transcript and the correspondence did not support the conclusion that the Appellant intended only to prevent future claims for damages. Because that adverse interpretation was not raised with the Appellant, the Tribunal denied procedural fairness. The appeal was therefore upheld, the Tribunal's orders set aside, and the s.111 application remitted for rehearing by a differently constituted Tribunal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 July 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under S.113 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 / Appeal Panel Decision on Appeal From Refusal of Application Under S.111
Outcome
Appeal upheld.
Legal Topics
['procedural Fairness' 'natural Justice' 'no Evidence' 'deed of Release' 'tribunal Not Bound by Rules of Evidence' 'opportunity to Be Heard']
['administrative Law' 'anti Discrimination Law' 'employment Law'] ['procedural Fairness' 'natural Justice' 'no Evidence' 'deed of Release' 'tribunal Not Bound by Rules of Evidence' 'opportunity to Be Heard']

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

Appeal Under S.113 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 / Appeal Panel Decision on Appeal From Refusal of Application Under S.111

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Tribunal denied procedural fairness by making a finding about the Appellant's intention in requiring execution of the Deed that was not advanced by the Respondent or raised with the Appellant." "Whether the Tribunal's finding that the Appellant intended only to prevent further claims for damages was available on the evidence." "Whether the Tribunal's construction of the Deed of Release was contrary to the evidence." 'Whether submissions made to a tribunal can be treated as evidence under s 73(2) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal erred in law by treating submissions as evidence and by making a central finding about the Appellant's intention that was not supported by the documentary evidence and had not been put to the Appellant. The Deed of Release, the IRC transcript and the correspondence did not support the conclusion that the Appellant intended only to prevent future claims for damages. Because that adverse interpretation was not raised with the Appellant, the Tribunal denied procedural fairness. The appeal was therefore upheld, the Tribunal's orders set aside, and the s.111 application remitted for rehearing by a differently constituted Tribunal.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is upheld.' 'The orders of the Tribunal are set aside.' "The Appellant's application under s.111 is remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal for hearing."]