Artinos v Stuart Reid Pty Ltd - [2007] FMCA 1141

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ARTINOS v STUART REID PTY LTD

[2007] FMCA 1141

HUMAN RIGHTS – Discrimination in employment on the grounds of marital status and age – sexual harassment – interlocutory dismissal of application – no reasonable prospects of success.

Age Discrimination Act 2004 (Cth)
Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth), s.17A
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth)
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth), ss.46PH, 46PO
Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), s.28B
Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth)

Penhall-Jones v State of New South Wales [2006] FCA 934
Rana v University of South Australia (2004) 136 FCR 244
Vivid Entertainment LLC & Ors v Digital Sinema Australia Pty Limited & Ors [2007] FMCA 157

Applicant:

MARIE ARTINOS

Respondent:

STUART REID PTY LTD

File Number:

SYG969 of 2007

Judgment of:

Driver FM

Hearing date:

17 July 2007

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

17 July 2007

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant appeared in person

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Ms M Horvath
Truman Hoyle Lawyers

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

The application is dismissed, pursuant to s.17A of the Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth) and rule 13.10(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth).
The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application, fixed in the sum of $6,460.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG969 of 2007

MARIE ARTINOS

Applicant

And

STUART REID PTY LTD

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(revised from transcript)

I have before me a motion of which notice was given on 26 June 2007 seeking the summary dismissal of an application to the Court under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) (“the HREOC Act”). The application under the HREOC Act was filed on 26 November 2006. It claimed relief in relation to alleged sexual harassment by Mr Stuart Reid and Ms Ximena Marco, also single status and age discrimination by Mr Stuart Reid, underpayment of wages by Mr Stuart Reid, and defamation by Mrs Vanessa Reid.
The application was accompanied by a form 167 claim under the HREOC Act which provided basic factual and procedural details in relation to claim. The application was also supported by a short affidavit by the applicant and by a copy of the notice of termination of a complaint under the HREOC Act by the delegate of the President. The complaint was terminated on 31 October 2006 pursuant to s.46PH(1)(b) of the HREOC Act on the basis that the complaint was lodged more than 12 months after the alleged unlawful discrimination took place.
The alleged events leading to the present proceedings occurred between 20 November 2000 and 4 December 2000 when the applicant, Ms Artinos, was employed by the respondent, Stuart Reid Pty Limited. The complaint lodged with HREOC was that shortly after commencing her brief employment Ms Artinos queried her rate of pay and conditions of employment with the company's managing director, Mr Reid. She claimed that Mr Reid told her that she was young and had no real experience and…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Artinos v Stuart Reid Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2007] FMCA 1141
Decision Date: 17 July 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Artinos v Stuart Reid Pty Ltd was heard in the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia. Marie Artinos, the applicant, filed an application against Stuart Reid Pty Ltd, the respondent, alleging multiple forms of discrimination and harassment during her employment with the company between 20 November 2000 and 4 December 2000. The allegations included sexual harassment, discrimination based on marital status and age, underpayment of wages, and defamation by Vanessa Reid, the wife of Stuart Reid. The respondent sought summary dismissal of the application on the basis that it had no reasonable prospects of success. The court was required to decide whether the application should be summarily dismissed, considering the age of the allegations, the adequacy of the applicant's evidence, and the potential for success at a final hearing.

The court noted that the application contained claims that could not be adjudicated, including the alleged defamation by Vanessa Reid, which should be pursued in a state court, and the claim of underpayment of wages, which fell under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth). The court further considered the claim of discrimination and sexual harassment. While the applicant alleged specific incidents that could potentially support these claims, the court found that the passage of time and lack of corroboration made it highly unlikely that the applicant would succeed at a final hearing. The court also took into account the applicant's recent recollection of past traumatic events, which raised questions about the reliability of her current allegations. Based on these considerations, the court concluded that the application had no reasonable prospects of success.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the application summarily under section 17A of the Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth) and rule 13.10(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth). The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application, fixed in the sum of $6,460. The court emphasized the importance of caution in dismissing an application on the basis of no reasonable prospects of success and highlighted the need for adequate evidence and a realistic chance of success at a final hearing.

Orders