Giniotis v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission [2000] FCA 1954

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Giniotis v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission [2000] FCA 1954 STELLA STASE GINIOTIS v HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION N 225 OF 2000 WHITLAM, MOORE & GYLES JJ 7 AUGUST 2000 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N225 OF 2000

BETWEEN: STELLA STASE GINIOTIS

APPLICANT

AND: HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

RESPONDENT

JUDGES: WHITLAM, MOORE AND GYLES JJ

DATE OF ORDER: 7 AUGUST 2000

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. Leave to appeal is refused. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N225 OF 2000

BETWEEN: STELLA STASE GINIOTIS

APPLICANT

AND: HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

RESPONDENT

JUDGES: WHITLAM, MOORE AND GYLES JJ

DATE: 7 AUGUST 2000

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

WHITLAM J 1 Stella Stase Giniotis purports to appeal from a judgment of Branson J given on 15 March 2000 refusing to allow further time under s 11(1)(c) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) ("the ADJR Act") for the lodgment of an application for an order of review. That is an interlocutory judgment, from which there is no appeal as of right. Mrs Giniotis accordingly requires leave to appeal. 2 The application for an order of review was filed on 22 February 2000 together with copies of the decisions the subject of the application. These were three decisions of Professor Alice Erh-Soon Tay, the President of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission ("the Commission") made on 29 September 1999. One decision was made under s 101 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) ("the DDA") in respect of a complaint against three firms of solicitors. The other two decisions were made under s 101 of the DDA and s 24AA of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) in respect of one complaint against the New South Wales Legal Aid Commission and one of its solicitors and another complaint against the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner. None of these persons was a respondent to Mrs Giniotis' application under the ADJR Act, the only respondent to which was the Commission. 3 The Commission entered an appearance submitting to any order save as to costs. A member of the Commission legal staff appeared at the first directions hearing before Branson J. At that hearing her Honour pointed out to Mrs Giniotis that, since she had been furnished with copies of Professor Tay's decisions under cover of a letter dated 29 September 1999, the period within which any application under the ADJR Act had to be made expired after 28 days. Mrs Giniotis' application for an extension of time was adjourned until 15 March 2000 in order to give her an opportunity to file evidence in support of such an application. 4 At the hearing of that motion the staff solicitor from the Commission handed up a chronology, which has been included in the appeal papers before us. That chronology gives some background to the complaints made by Mrs Giniotis. The actual application for an order of review is nonsense. The grounds do not conform with s 5 of the ADJR Act, and the relief claimed bears no resemblance to kinds of orders that the Court might make under s 16 of that Act. 5 In dealing with Mrs Giniotis' application for an extension of time, Branson J referred to the well known statement of Wilcox J in Hunter Valley Development Pty Ltd v Cohen (1984) 3 FCR 344. Her Honour was hardly able on the material before her to form a view of the merits of the application. However, the possibility of any explanation for Mrs Giniotis' delay in commencing proceedings in the Court was explored. Her Honour said at [6] – [10]: "6. The further affidavit filed by Mrs Giniotis gives little, if any, particulars of the precise steps taken by her to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court as opposed to the general steps taken by her to deal with the numerous problems which she has faced over recent years. In response to questions from me, Mrs Giniotis has made it clear that the approaches to various authorities and agencies referred to in paragraph 4 of her affidavit of 10 March 2000 had little to do with any attempt by her to lodge an application with the Registry of this Court. None of the affidavits filed by Mrs Giniotis gives any evidence about her seeking advice from the registry of this Court as advised by the Commission. Nor do the affidavits explain the circumstances in which the application ultimately made by Mrs Giniotis came to be made.