Search results

The Australian Human Rights Commission (‘the Commission’) has a function to intervene, with a Court’s leave, in proceedings involving issues of discrimination or human rights (otherwise known as ‘intervention issues’).

Summary of Interventions by the Australian Human Rights Commission Updated 11 December 2009 Download PDF (100 kb) Word (181 kb) YEAR NO. OF CASES NAME OF CASE SUBJECT MATTER OF CASE COURT 1988 1. Re A Teenager (1988) 94 FLR 181 Family Law – Sterilisation of a young woman with a disability Family Court 2. Re Jane Family Law – Sterilisation of person with disability – whether parents require…

Apart from the express statutory authority for such intervention it would appear that the non party intervention may only be allowed where the intervener can provide arguments or facts which will contribute to the Court's reaching an informed decision, and where the significance of those arguments or facts is sufficient to outweigh any expense and/or delay which may be caused to the parties by…

HIS HONOUR: The accused Cheung Ying Lun also known as Garry Cheung is to stand trial in this court on 15 February 1993 upon an indictment charging that between 1 August 1988 and 12 May 1989 he was knowingly concerned in the importation into Australia of a quantity of heroin exceeding the commercial quantity.

(i) R -v- Shrestha 100 ALR 757 (ii) Mabo -v- Queensland (1992) 66 AUR 408(iii) Adamopoulous -t- Olympic Airways SA 25 NSWLR 75(iv) Gradidge -v- Grace Bros Pty Ltd (1988) 93 FLR 414

View a report into the Commission seeking leave to intervene in the case of Tiahana Hurst v State of QLD in relation to the Disability Discrimination Act.

For the purposes of this Act, a person (discriminator) discriminates against another person (aggrieved person) on the ground of a disability of the aggrieved person if the discriminator requires the aggrieved person to comply with a requirement or condition:

1. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission makes two submissions with respect to the interpretation of s.170DF(2)(f) of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth). They are:

1. I am the Secretary of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) and am duly authorised to make this affidavit.

3. His Honour failed to take into account the decision of the High Court of Australia in Waters -v- the Public Transport Commission in stating that the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission is not limited in its consideration by anything set down in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984.

1.1 On 8 February 2002, the Full Court granted leave to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission ("the Commission") to intervene in this appeal, pursuant to s.92 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("Family Law Act").

On 8 February 2002, the Full Court of the Family Court granted leave to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission ("the Commission") to intervene in the appeal by the Attorney-General against the judgment of Justice Chisholm on 12 October 2001. In that judgment, his Honour declared valid the marriage between Kevin (a post-operative female to male transsexual person) and Jennifer…

1.1  It is submitted that the law in Australia is both uncertain and unsatisfactory as to the issue of whether a child's views should ordinarily be taken into account by a court when that court is considering whether to authorise medical treatment on the child.

1.1 On 15 January 2004, the Family Court granted leave to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission ("the Commission") to intervene in these proceedings, pursuant to s 92 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("Family Law Act").

1.1 On 7 March 2006, the Family Court of Australia granted leave to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) to intervene in these proceedings pursuant to s 92 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (‘Family Law Act’).

The Commission supports the submissions of the appellant in Matter No.12 of 1994 and of the applicant in Matter No.13 of 1994. Its additional submissions are limited to (1) the relevance of the welfare jurisdiction of the Family Court, and (2) a review of relevant comparative international law (written submissions).