Dunstan v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [2004] FCA 284

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Dunstan v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [2004] FCA 284

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) s 5(1) Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) ss 57, 115 Racial Discrimination Act 1976 (Cth) Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) Limitations Act 1985 (ACT) s 30 McKellar v Container Terminal Management Services Ltd (1999) 165 ALR 409; [1999] FCA 1101 Sanders v Snell (1998) 196 CLR 329 Northern Territory v Mengel (1995) 185 CLR 307 Queensland v J L Holdings Pty Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 146 Leotta v Public Transport Commission (1976) 9 ALR 437 Hamilton v Nuroof (WA) Pty Ltd (1956) 96 CLR 18 COLIN GEORGE DUNSTAN v HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, HENRY PRICE, DONALD BARTLEY, JOHN GROWDER, GEOFFREY SEYMOUR & COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA AG 30 of 1997 MANSFIELD J 19 MARCH 2004 CANBERRA (HEARD IN ADELAIDE)

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY AG 30 OF 1997

BETWEEN: COLIN GEORGE DUNSTAN

APPLICANT

AND: HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

FIRST RESPONDENT

HENRY PRICE

SECOND RESPONDENT

DONALD BARTLEY

THIRD RESPONDENT

JOHN GROWDER

FOURTH RESPONDENT

GEOFFREY SEYMOUR

FIFTH RESPONDENT

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

SIXTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE: MANSFIELD J

DATE OF ORDER: 19 MARCH 2004

WHERE MADE: CANBERRA (HEARD IN ADELAIDE)

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The applicant by no later than 30 April 2004 file and serve a document which: (1) in respect of the statement published by the third respondent to an officer of the sixth respondent in or about March 1994 – (a) states whether the statement was oral or in writing, and (i) if oral, identifies as best as can be done the occasion, the place and the parties present, including the name of the officer of the sixth respondent referred to, and (ii) if in writing, identifies as best as can be done the document by date, author and addressee (b) indicates separately in respect of each of the meanings which is alleged to have been conveyed to an officer of the sixth respondent (i) the words by reason of which the particular meaning is alleged to have been communicated, and (ii) the meaning alleged to have been communicated by those words (2) in respect of the statement published by the third respondent to the second respondent on or about 28 November 1994 – (a) states whether the statement was oral or in writing, and (i) if oral, identifies as best as can be done the occasion, the place and the parties present, and (ii) if in writing, identifies as best as can be done the document by date, author and addressee (b) indicates separately in respect of each of the meanings which is alleged to have been conveyed to the second respondent (i) the words by reason of which the particular meaning is alleged to have been communicated, and (ii) the meaning alleged to have been communicated by those words (3) in respect of the statement published by the third respondent to an officer of the sixth respondent on or about 27 February 1995 – (a) states whether the statement was oral or in writing, and (i) if oral, identifies as best as can be done the occasion, the place and the parties present, including the name of the officer of the sixth respondent referred to, (ii) if in writing, identify as best as can be done the document by date, author and addressee (b) indicates separately in respect of each of the meanings which is alleged to have been conveyed to an officer of the sixth respondent (i) the words by reason of which the particular meaning is alleged to have been communicated, and (ii) the meaning alleged to have been communicated by those words (4) in respect of the letter dated 18 September 1995 published by the third respondent to an officer of the sixth respondent – (a) states (i) the author of the letter, (ii) when the letter was published to an officer of the sixth respondent, (iii) the name or description of the status of the officer of the sixth respondent to whom it was published, and (b) indicates separately in respect of each of the meanings which is alleged to have been conveyed to an officer of the sixth respondent (i) the words by reason of which the particular meaning is alleged to have been communicated, and (ii) the meaning alleged to have been communicated by those words (5) in respect of the letter dated 4 January 1996 published by the third respondent to an officer of the sixth respondent (a) states – (i) the author of the letter, (ii) when the letter was published to an officer of the sixth respondent, (iii) the name or description of the status of the officer of the sixth respondent to whom it was published, and (b) indicates separately in respect of each of the meanings which is alleged to have been conveyed to an officer of the sixth respondent (i) the words by reason of which the particular meaning is alleged to have been communicated, and (ii) the meaning alleged to have been communicated by those words (6) in respect of the submission made on or about 23 January 1996 by the third respondent to the first respondent – (a) states (i) the author of the submission, (ii) when the submission was published to the first respondent, (iii) the name or description of the status of the officer of the first respondent to whom it was published, and (b) indicates separately in respect of each of the meanings which is alleged to have been conveyed to the first respondent (i) the words by reason of which the particular meaning is alleged to have been communicated, and (ii) the meaning alleged to have been communicated by those words (7) in respect of the letters dated on or about 24 January 1996 published by the third respondent to the second respondent – (a) states the author(s) of the letters, (b) indicates separately in respect of each of the meanings which is alleged to have been conveyed to the second respondent (i) the words by reason of which the particular meaning is alleged to have been communicated, and (ii) the meaning alleged to have been communicated by those words (8) in respect of the submission made on or about 4 July 1996 by the third respondent to an officer of the sixth respondent – (a) states (i) the author of the submission, (ii) when the submission was published to an officer of the sixth respondent, (iii) the name or description of the status of the officer of the sixth respondent to whom it was published, and (b) indicates separately in respect of each of the meanings which is alleged to have been conveyed to an officer of the sixth respondent (i) the words by reason of which the particular meaning is alleged to have been communicated, and (ii) the meaning alleged to have been communicated by those words (9) in respect of the letter dated 27 November 1996 published by the third respondent to an officer of the sixth respondent – (a) states (i) the author of the letter, (ii) when the letter was published to an officer of the sixth respondent, (iii) the name or description of the status of the officer of the sixth respondent to whom it was published, and (b) indicates separately in respect of each of the meanings which is alleged to have been conveyed to an officer of the sixth respondent (i) the words by reason of which the particular meaning is alleged to have been communicated, and (ii) the meaning alleged to have been communicated by those words (10) in respect of the minute dated 24 April 1996 published by the fourth respondent to an officer of the sixth respondent – (a) states the author of the minute, (b) indicates separately in respect of each of the meanings which is alleged to have been conveyed to an officer of the sixth respondent (i) the words by reason of which the particular meaning is alleged to have been communicated, and (ii) the meaning alleged to have been communicated by those words; (11) in respect of the statement published by the fifth respondent to an officer of the sixth respondent on or about 9 September 1993 – (a) states whether the statement was oral or in writing, and (i) if oral, identifies as best as can be done the occasion, the place and the parties present, including the name of the officer of the sixth respondent referred to, (ii) if in writing, identifies as best as can be done the document by date, author and addressee (b) indicates separately in respect of each of the meanings which is alleged to have been conveyed to an officer of the sixth respondent (i) the words by reason of which the particular meaning is alleged to have been communicated, and (ii) the meaning alleged to have been communicated by those words (12) in respect of the submission made on or about 18 January 1996 by the fifth respondent to the first respondent – (a) states (i) the author of the submission, (ii) when the submission was made to the first respondent, and (b) indicates separately in respect of each of the meanings which is alleged to have been conveyed to the fifth respondent, (i) the words by reason of which the particular meaning is alleged to have been communicated, and (ii) the meaning alleged to have been communicated by those words. 2. Leave to amend the amended statement of claim filed on 13 November 1998 in terms of the document called 'amended statement of claim' filed on 8 September 1999 is refused. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.