Court will Determine whether a Declaration of Inconsistent Interpretation should be Made During Primary Hearing
Noone, Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria v Operation Smile (Australia) & Ors (No 2) [2011] VSC 153 (19 April 2011)
The case involved an application brought by the Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria against the Hope Clinic. The application sought to prevent the continuation of representations made by the Hope Clinic as to the benefits of its therapies for sufferers of, amongst other illnesses, cancer. In particular, the plaintiff alleged that the representations contravened section 9 of the Fair Trading Act. This section provides:
A person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive.
The court received submissions from the Attorney General and PILCH (as amicus curiae) on the operation of the Charter of Rights and Responsibilities as it relates to s 9 of the Act. In particular, s 15 of the Charter which provides:
Every person has the right to hold an opinion without interference.
Ultimately, Pagone J concluded that the application of s 9 of the Act made it unnecessary to consider whether there was a conflict between s 9 of the Act and s 15 of the Charter. Accordingly, the Court did not have to apply the test in R v Momcilovic to ascertain whether there was a conflict between a statutory provision and the Charter.
The Court did review the Attorney General’s submission that any declaration of inconsistency under s 36 of the Act should be made at a subsequent hearing to the hearing where a statutory provision was deemed to be inconsistent with a human right. Section 36 provides:
Subject to any relevant override declaration, if in a proceeding the Supreme Court is of the opinion that a statutory provision cannot be interpreted consistently with a human right, the Court may make a declaration to that effect in accordance with the section.
Justice Pagone did not accept that the proper construction of s 36 was that an inconsistency between a statutory provision and a human right should only be declared in a subsequent hearing to the hearing where the inconsistency was first identified by the Court. While His Honour remarked that the submissions relating to the Charter did not need to be heard for the purposes of the application made by the Applicant, deferring the declaration of whether a statutory provision was inconsistent with a human right under s 36 of the Charter had the potential to “unnecessarily prolong disputes and might give rise to inconsistencies in determinations arising from different proceedings involving overlapping issues and debates.”
The decision is at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2011/153.html.
Heath Paynter is on secondment to the Human Rights Law Centre from Russell Kennedy
Landmark decision ordering Shell to cut CO2 emissions from its global operations by 45% overturned by Hague Court of Appeal
On 12 November 2024, the Court of Appeal of the Hague overturned the landmark 2021 decision of the District Court of The Hague (District Court) in Milieudefensie et al v Royal Dutch Shell, which had ordered Shell to cut CO2 emissions from its global operations by 45% by the end of 2030.
Read more
Young campaigners landmark victory for children’s rights as new coal-fired power generation deemed unconstitutional in South Africa
The High Court of South Africa ruled that the government’s plans to add 1,500 megawatts of new coal-fired power stations were “unlawful and invalid”. In a youth-driven petition brought by three civil society organisations, the Court found that the plans failed to adequately consider the impacts of coal-fired power on children’s rights, particularly their constitutional right to a healthy environment.
Read more
Tribunal found Southern Restaurants imposed unreasonable conditions on a young breast-feeding mother leading to a finding of discrimination
A young breastfeeding mother was found to have been discriminated against by her employer and awarded $90,000 in compensation.
Read more
Acknowledgement of Country
The Human Rights Law Centre acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the lands across Australia, including the lands of the Wurundjeri, Boon Wurrung, Gadigal, Ngunnawal, Darug and Wadawurrung people where we work from.
We pay our respect to Elders past and present. This land always was, and always will be Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander land. Sovereignty has never been ceded.
WARNING: This site contains images or names of people who have passed away.