Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Firew v Auburn Hospital (Auburn Community Health Centre) [2004] FCA 574 Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 25(1A) Federal Court Rules (Cth) O 52 r 38A(1)(c), O 52 r 38A(2), O 80 Firew v Busways Trust & Ors [2003] FMCA 193 cited SENTAYEHU FIREW v AUBURN HOSPITAL (AUBURN COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE) AND IVECO (TRUCKS) AUSTRALIA PTY LTD V 441 of 2003 GRAY J 8 APRIL 2004 MELBOURNE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 441 of 2003
BETWEEN: SENTAYEHU FIREW
APPLICANT
AND: AUBURN HOSPITAL (AUBURN COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE)
FIRST RESPONDENT
IVECO (TRUCKS) AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE: GRAY J
DATE OF ORDER: 8 APRIL 2004
WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT the appeal be dismissed. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 441 of 2003
BETWEEN: SENTAYEHU FIREW
APPLICANT
AND: AUBURN HOSPITAL (AUBURN COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE)
FIRST RESPONDENT
IVECO (TRUCKS) AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE: GRAY J
DATE: 8 APRIL 2004
PLACE: MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This proceeding is an appeal from a judgment of a Federal Magistrate, delivered on 16 May 2003. See Firew v Busways Trust & Ors [2003] FMCA 193. In substance the Federal Magistrate declined to deal with an application made pursuant to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) ('the HREOC Act') against two parties. The two parties are designated in the proceeding as Auburn Hospital (Auburn Community Health Centre), and Iveco (Trucks) Australia Pty Ltd respectively. I understand that the party named as the first respondent regards itself as misdescribed in the title to the proceeding and is correctly described as Western Sydney Area Health Service. 2 The notice of appeal was filed in this Court on 5 June 2003. The Chief Justice made a determination pursuant to s 25(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) that the appeal should be heard and determined by a single judge.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate