Kowalski v Domestic Violence Crisis Service [2005] FCA 12

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Kowalski v Domestic Violence Crisis Service [2005] FCA 12 SEX DISCRIMINATION - complaint under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) – review of Federal Magistrate's decision dismissing application for review of a decision made by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission –– whether no evidence for decision – whether decision was against the weight of evidence. PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – appeal from Federal Magistrate's decision under Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) by way of rehearing – where original decision limited to one issue – whether power to substitute judgment. Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), s 5, s 22. Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167 followed Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission v Mount Isa Mines Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 301 followed Purvis v New South Wales (2003) 202 ALR 133 applied STAN LECH KOWALSKI V DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CRISIS SERVICE NO. A 18 OF 2003 MADGWICK J 21 JANUARY 2005 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY A 18 OF 2003

DISTRICT REGISTRY

BETWEEN: STAN LECH KOWALSKI

APPLICANT

AND: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CRISIS SERVICE

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: MADGWICK J.

DATE OF ORDER: 21 JANUARY 2005

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY (HEARD IN CANBERRA)

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed with costs.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY A 18 OF 2003

DISTRICT REGISTRY

BETWEEN: STAN LECH KOWALSKI

APPLICANT

AND: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CRISIS SERVICE

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: MADGWICK J.

DATE: 21 JANUARY 2005

PLACE: SYDNEY (HEARD IN CANBERRA)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

MADGWICK J: 1 This is an appeal from a decision of the Federal Magistrates Court made on 22 May 2003, which dismissed an application under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) ('the HREOC Act') for a declaration that the respondent had engaged in unlawful conduct in the provision of services, contrary to s 5 and s 22 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) ('the SD Act'). 2 The appellant is primarily seeking orders that the Federal Magistrate's decision be set aside and that the matter be remitted for a full re-hearing and determination. In the alternative, the appellant seeks: a declaration that the respondent has engaged in unlawful discrimination against the appellant, a written apology, and damages to be assessed on an expedited basis.