Bru Net Pty Ltd v Murphy

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Bru Net Pty Ltd v Murphy [2003] FCA 244

BRU NET PTY LTD (ACN 007 980 145) v SUSAN MURPHY

S 277 of 2002

SELWAY J
ADELAIDE
11 MARCH 2003

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	S 277 OF 2002

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	BRU NET PTY LTD (ACN 007 980 145) APPELLANT
AND:	SUSAN MURPHY RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	SELWAY J
DATE OF ORDER:	11 MARCH 2003
WHERE MADE:	ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.The respondents to have its costs of the appeal to be taxed or agreed.

3.The time for any appeal should run from the delivery of the written reasons.

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	S 277 OF 2002

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	BRU NET PTY LTD (ACN 007 980 145) APPELLANT
AND:	SUSAN MURPHY RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	SELWAY J
DATE:	11 MARCH 2003
PLACE:	ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This matter arises out of a complaint by the respondent to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission (“HREOC”), apparently that she had been discriminated against in her employment on account of her sex.  Although the original complaint specified a number of individuals, as well as “Ray White Real Estate” as those subject to the complaint, by the time that it had been investigated by HREOC, the respondents were described by HREOC as “David Loper”, “Fasselton Pty Ltd trading as Ray White Semaphore” and “Ray White South Australia”.

2. HREOC terminated its consideration of the complaint and proceedings were instituted in this Court pursuant to s 46 PO of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission Act 1986 (Cth) (“the Act”).  The respondents to those proceedings were described as “David Loper” and “Bru Net Pty Ltd (ACN 007 980 145) trading as Ray White Semaphore” (“the appellant”).

3. It would appear from the material before me that “Fasselton Pty Ltd” was the owner of the trading name Ray White Semaphore for a time, but that at some other time the appellant was the owner of that trading name.  Which one of these companies owned the trading name at the relevant date or dates (whatever they may be) may be in dispute, but does not now need to be determined.

4. The matter was referred to the Federal Magistrates Court by von Doussa J on 30 April 2002.  In that court counsel for the appellant applied to have the proceedings struck out as against his client.  His argument was that under s 46 PO of the Act proceedings in this Court could only be taken against “one or more respondents to the terminated complaint”.  He argued that the relevant respondent before the commission was Fasselton Pty Ltd, not Bru Net Pty Ltd.  The learned Federal Magistrate accepted this submission and struck out the proceedings in relation to the appellant.…