Latest news with #QCAT
West Australian
4 days ago
- Politics
- West Australian
Man claims ‘discrimination' after request for Greek Orthodox funeral for deceased 93yo father denied
A man who claimed he was subject to religious discrimination by the Queensland Government after they refused to pay for his deceased father's Greek Orthodox funeral says he was denied 'natural justice' when his case was thrown out. Angelos Angelopoulos' attempt to take the government to the state's civil tribunal was refused in 2022 after he complained he was subject to discrimination when told a grant of funding for a burial service for his father, Anastasios, would not cover the costs of a Greek Orthodox service required to help farewell the 93-year-old. After appealing the decision from the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT), Mr Angelopoulos this week suffered an additional blow in court when this fresh attempt was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in Brisbane. Anastasios died in hospital on June 23, 2018. His son sought financial assistance from the Palaszczuk-led Labor government under Queensland's Burials Assistance Act (BAA) as he could not afford to pay for the funeral service and burial at the time of Anastasios' passing. But the aid only covered the reopening of a pre-purchased burial plot, a graveside service, the funeral director's fee, a coffin and 'any required preparation of the body and transportation from the morgue to the burial site'. Angelos desired for his father to hold a Greek Orthodox funeral according to Anastasios' strong beliefs, but further financial assistance for this was refused. The Greek community and the Greek Orthodox Church stepped in to fund a church service, but it did not extend to the costs of the private viewing of Anastasios in an open coffin. It was not for another 20 weeks Mr Angelopoulos' father was buried in November 2018. In his submissions to the tribunal, he argued he was discriminated against over the requirement to bury his father 'without his complying with his father's and his own religious beliefs'. 'According to Mr Angelopoulos, a higher proportion of people who are not of Greek Orthodox faith would be able to comply with the term and bury family members without a church service or private viewing,' the Court of Appeal judgment states. The tribunal dismissed Mr Angelopoulos' application in 2022. In her decision, QCAT member Joanne Browne said Mr Angelopoulos was not treated 'less favourably' than any other person because of the decision to grant him funding under the BAA. 'The respondent's conduct is in all of the circumstances reasonable … on the basis that the conduct was necessary to comply with or is specifically authorised by the BAA,' she wrote. Ms Browne noted Mr Angelopoulos was not denied the additional costs associated with a funeral because of his religious beliefs. Under the Act, the government could only make arrangements for the disposal of a body, such as helping with a burial or cremation, and funerals were not covered under the funding arrangement. The Department of Justice and Attorney-General (DJAG) also wrote to Mr Angelopoulos informing him the Orthodox service was not part of the scope of their funding arrangement. 'Queensland is a multicultural state with diverse range of cultures and religions. Should DJAG agree to provide a church service and viewing in the current circumstances, then it would be obliged to provide a similar offer to all applicants of all cultures and religion,' the department said, according to the QCAT judgment. 'The cost to the state would be very significant and this would be a huge impost on limited government funds to provide specialised funeral services, as opposed to a simple burial, for each and every culture and religion in circumstances where burial assistance is approved.' A subsequent attempt to appeal the decision through QCAT's own appeals tribunal was also dismissed. Mr Angelopoulos then took the matter to Queensland's Court of Appeal, arguing five grounds. Some of his submissions included that he was denied natural justice due to limited evidence, the tribunal overlooked the Human Rights Act and that there was an error of fact in the respondent's argument. The Court of Appeal judgment states there was 'no jurisdiction' for at least three of the grounds of appeal. 'Leave should not be granted to the applicant given the proposed appeal does not raise questions of law arising from the final decision … in relation to grounds 1-3 and 5,' the judgment states. In addressing claims surrounding the Human Rights Act, the court found it did not raise an 'arguable error of law requiring correction to avoid substantial injustice.'
Perth Now
4 days ago
- Politics
- Perth Now
Dad's funeral refusal ‘discrimination': court
A man who claimed he was subject to religious discrimination by the Queensland Government after they refused to pay for his deceased father's Greek Orthodox funeral says he was denied 'natural justice' when his case was thrown out. Angelos Angelopoulos' attempt to take the government to the state's civil tribunal was refused in 2022 after he complained he was subject to discrimination when told a grant of funding for a burial service for his father, Anastasios, would not cover the costs of a Greek Orthodox service required to help farewell the 93-year-old. After appealing the decision from the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT), Mr Angelopoulos this week suffered an additional blow in court when this fresh attempt was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in Brisbane. Anastasios died in hospital on June 23, 2018. Angelos Angelopoulos claimed he was subject to religious discrimination when the government refused to cover the costs of a Greek Orthodox service for his father, Anastasios, in 2018. Zak Simmonds Credit: News Corp Australia His son sought financial assistance from the Palaszczuk-led Labor government under Queensland's Burials Assistance Act (BAA) as he could not afford to pay for the funeral service and burial at the time of Anastasios' passing. But the aid only covered the reopening of a pre-purchased burial plot, a graveside service, the funeral director's fee, a coffin and 'any required preparation of the body and transportation from the morgue to the burial site'. Angelos desired for his father to hold a Greek Orthodox funeral according to Anastasios' strong beliefs, but further financial assistance for this was refused. The Greek community and the Greek Orthodox Church stepped in to fund a church service, but it did not extend to the costs of the private viewing of Anastasios in an open coffin. It was not for another 20 weeks Mr Angelopoulos' father was buried in November 2018. In his submissions to the tribunal, he argued he was discriminated against over the requirement to bury his father 'without his complying with his father's and his own religious beliefs'. 'According to Mr Angelopoulos, a higher proportion of people who are not of Greek Orthodox faith would be able to comply with the term and bury family members without a church service or private viewing,' the Court of Appeal judgment states. Anastasios Angelopoulos was not buried for 20 weeks until the Greek community and the Greek Orthodox Church stepped in to fund a church service, but it did not extend to the costs of the private viewing of Anastasios in an open coffin. Supplied Credit: Supplied Anastasios Angelopoulos with his wife Lygeri. Supplied Credit: Supplied The tribunal dismissed Mr Angelopoulos' application in 2022. In her decision, QCAT member Joanne Browne said Mr Angelopoulos was not treated 'less favourably' than any other person because of the decision to grant him funding under the BAA. 'The respondent's conduct is in all of the circumstances reasonable … on the basis that the conduct was necessary to comply with or is specifically authorised by the BAA,' she wrote. Ms Browne noted Mr Angelopoulos was not denied the additional costs associated with a funeral because of his religious beliefs. Under the Act, the government could only make arrangements for the disposal of a body, such as helping with a burial or cremation, and funerals were not covered under the funding arrangement. The Department of Justice and Attorney-General (DJAG) also wrote to Mr Angelopoulos informing him the Orthodox service was not part of the scope of their funding arrangement. 'Queensland is a multicultural state with diverse range of cultures and religions. Should DJAG agree to provide a church service and viewing in the current circumstances, then it would be obliged to provide a similar offer to all applicants of all cultures and religion,' the department said, according to the QCAT judgment. The Court of Appeal in Brisbane threw our Mr Angelopoulos' application to overturn the QCAT decision, finding there were no sufficient grounds. NewsWire/ Glenn Campbell Credit: News Corp Australia 'The cost to the state would be very significant and this would be a huge impost on limited government funds to provide specialised funeral services, as opposed to a simple burial, for each and every culture and religion in circumstances where burial assistance is approved.' A subsequent attempt to appeal the decision through QCAT's own appeals tribunal was also dismissed. Mr Angelopoulos then took the matter to Queensland's Court of Appeal, arguing five grounds. Some of his submissions included that he was denied natural justice due to limited evidence, the tribunal overlooked the Human Rights Act and that there was an error of fact in the respondent's argument. The Court of Appeal judgment states there was 'no jurisdiction' for at least three of the grounds of appeal. 'Leave should not be granted to the applicant given the proposed appeal does not raise questions of law arising from the final decision … in relation to grounds 1-3 and 5,' the judgment states. In addressing claims surrounding the Human Rights Act, the court found it did not raise an 'arguable error of law requiring correction to avoid substantial injustice.'
Yahoo
17-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
$10,000 pokies win divides friendship after holiday loan dispute: 'Dog act'
Welcome to legal column where lawyers Alison and Jillian Barrett from Maurice Blackburn tackle problems everyday Aussies face — whether it be consumer, property, money matters impacting relationships or work. This week, a man's friendship has turned sour over a holiday loan dispute. Question "I borrowed money from a friend for a holiday we were going on together. He agreed I could pay him back over a year. We were at the pub last week and I won $10,000 on the pokies and he was there. Now he's asking me to pay him back in full immediately. I think that's a pretty dog act and could use that money to pay off my credit card. He is now threatening to sue me for the money. He offered because he didn't want to go on the holiday alone. What can I do?" Nate, Queensland. Response The agreement between you and your friend is a contract. Even if the agreement wasn't made in writing, this personal loan is enforceable under the law. Your friend is the creditor and you are the debtor. Whether the agreement was written or verbal, the specifics you both agreed upon, such as the repayment period of one year, are key. Therefore, any text messages, emails, or other forms of communication that outline the terms, will be helpful. In particular, any correspondence that states how often repayments need to be made and whether your friend can call upon the full payment of the debt within the loan period, will be very useful. It is important to document all discussions you are having with your friend about the repayment as they will be invaluable if your friend brings legal a revised repayment plan might also be a viable solution. For instance, you could offer to make a partial lump sum payment now, using a portion of your winnings, and continue with a repayment schedule for the remainder. This too might assist in maintaining your friendship. Ultimately if your friend chooses to 'sue' you that would be in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). If this occurs, you will be served with a claim document which details the debt, any evidence your friend has to support the claim and details of the amount he is trying to recover. You will then be required to respond in 'defence' of the claim. If you don't, QCAT may determine the matter without you and order that you repay the full debt. You don't need a solicitor to represent you at QCAT and a local community legal centre may be able to provide you with some free advice. Ultimately, whether you have grounds to avoid repaying the loan in full will turn on what was agreed on when your friend loaned you the money, and what evidence there is to prove this. This legal information is general in nature and should not be regarded as specific legal advice. If you need legal advice, you should consult a solicitor.
