Ahmad v MPA Engineering Pty Ltd (Subsidiary of Aquatec Maxcon Group Ltd) (No 2)

In *Ahmad v MPA Engineering Pty Ltd (Subsidiary of Aquatec Maxcon Group Ltd) (No 2)*, the applicant sought leave to proceed with an action alleging contraventions of the *Racial Discrimination Act 1975* (Cth) by the respondent. The applicant had filed an application in a case seeking leave to file an amended application and leave to proceed under s 46PO(3A) of the *Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986* (Cth).

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant's amended application sufficiently articulated his case to warrant leave to proceed. The Court was required to determine if the applicant's allegations, as presented in his filed documents and oral submissions, were clear enough for the respondent to answer and for the Court to adjudicate.

Cameron J found that while the applicant's complaints were understandable given his evident distress, the application in a case was poorly drafted, containing significant argument and submission rather than clear factual allegations. Although some paragraphs contained potentially relevant factual allegations, the document was characterised by rhetorical flourish and hyperbole, making it impossible for the Court to ascertain the precise nature of the applicant's case. The Court noted that the applicant's argument that the business relationship should be viewed as sham contracting, rather than between corporate entities, raised arguable issues of law and fact, but the lack of clarity in the pleading prevented the Court from proceeding.

Consequently, the application in a case filed on 1 June 2021 was dismissed. However, the applicant was granted a final opportunity to re-plead his case with sufficient clarity for the Court to properly consider it.