Ezekiel-Hart v ACT

[2020] ACTCA 32

ACT Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Tort
2. › Negligence
3. › Duty of care
4. › Whether government owed duty of care to protect individual from wrongdoing by statutory body
5. › Whether government had power to control statutory body
6. › Whether voluntary assumption of duty of care arose from ministerial correspondence
7. › Legal Profession Act 2006 (ACT), ss 253, 322, 373, 466, 576
1. Human Rights
2. › Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT)
3. › Public authority
4. › Whether Law Society established for 'public purpose'
5. › Whether Law Society is 'territory authority'
6. › Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT), ss 40B, 40C
7. › Legislation Act 2001 (ACT), Dictionary
1. Human Rights
2. › Racial discrimination
3. › Whether differential treatment of complaints constituted racial discrimination
4. › Whether evidence of discrimination established
1. Appeal
2. › Appeal by way of rehearing
3. › Standard of review
4. › Whether error demonstrated
5. › Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 37E

Quick Take

The ACT Law Society is not a 'public authority' for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) because it is not established for a 'public purpose' — the regulation of the legal profession is not a 'public purpose' in the relevant statutory sense. Specific statutory provisions requiring Attorney-General consent or reporting do not establish government control over the Law Society sufficient to found a duty of care or vicarious liability for the Law Society's actions.