Bolton v City of Melville

[2024] FedCFamC2G 1343

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 2)

Bolton v City of Melville [2024] FedCFamC2G 1343

File number(s):	PEG 135 of 2024
Judgment of:	JUDGE STREET
Date of judgment:	29 November 2024
Catchwords:	HUMAN RIGHTS – Application filed two days out of time – complaint terminated by Australian Human Rights Commission – extension of time granted
Legislation:	Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth)
Division:	Division 2 General Federal Law
Number of paragraphs:	6
Date of hearing:	29 November 2024
Place:	Sydney
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Applicant appeared by her Litigation Guardian through video/audio-link
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Mr A Sinanovic of Kennedys Law

ORDERS

PEG 135 of 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

GEOFFREY BOLTON ON BEHALF OF ESTELLE BOLTON

Applicant

AND:

CITY OF MELVILLE

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE STREET
DATE OF ORDER:	29 NOVEMBER 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Mr Geoffrey Bolton is appointed the Litigation Guardian for the Applicant Estelle Bolton pursuant to r 11.10 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth), and the Court dispenses with the other requirements of the rule.

2.Time for commencement of these proceedings is extended up to and including 22 April 2024.

3.The Applicant’s Litigation Guardian is directed to file and serve a Statement of Claim properly pleading the material facts and particulars in respect of the alleged discrimination on or before 31 January 2025.

4.The Respondent is directed to file and serve a defence on or before 28 February 2025.

5.The Court refers the matter to mediation under s 169 of the Federal Circuit and FamilyCourt of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) before a Registrar of the Court and directs the parties to comply with any request made by the Registrar for the purpose of the mediation.

6.The Parties are directed to seek to have the matter relisted within seven (7) days of an unsuccessful mediation.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

JUDGE STREET

1. This is an application by Mr Bolton (“the father”) to bring proceedings under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) (“the Act”) for alleged discrimination in relation to his daughter, who has a hearing disability. The proceedings were commenced on 22 April 2024, and a letter was issued by the Australian Human Rights Commission terminating the complaint on 20 February 2024. The application had to be brought within 60 days.

2. The father of Estelle Bolton, who is still a child, filed the proceedings identifying himself purporting to act on behalf of his daughter.  The matter, when first raised before this Court, was one where the Court appointed the father as the litigation guardian for his daughter, who is still a child.

3. Mr Sinanovic, on behalf of the respondent, contended that this case was filed two days out of the 60 day time under s 46PO(2) of the Act and that there should be no extension of time as there was an inadequate explanation as to the delay, and that there were issues in respect of the merits of the application. Mr Sinanovic contended that the strength of the case was not one which warranted an extension of time.

4. The father’s explanation for the delay was that he had first attempted to try and obtain legal help, and that he had problems with the internet in trying to lodge the relevant documents.  The delay is only of the order of two days.  The Court regards the explanation, in all the circumstances, by the father on behalf of the child litigant as an adequate explanation.

5. There are problems in relation to the merits of the case and whether or not it is one that has a real prospect of success.  However, the father identified that his daughter has had a fall on the area involved in the subject of his complaint. 

6. In all the circumstances, the Court is satisfied it is appropriate to extend time and makes the above orders.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the ex tempore Reasons for Judgment of Judge Street.

Associate:

Dated:       5 December 2024