Legal Research
Cases
Bunning v Centacare

Bunning v Centacare

Case [2015] FCCA 280 11 February 2015

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Standing

Statutory Construction

Summary Judgment

Employment Law

Constitutional Law

Statutory Interpretation

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BUNNING v CENTACARE

[2015] FCCA 280

Catchwords:

HUMAN RIGHTS – Sex discrimination.
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Application – summary dismissal of application.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – Judicial power.
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – Legislative intention.
ASSOCIATED JURISDICTION – s.18 FCCAA.

Legislation:

Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), s.4
Federal Circuit Court Act 1999, ss.17A, 18
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001, r.13.01

Article:
An Introduction to the Jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Australia- Allsop J

Spencer & The Commonwealth of Australia (2010) 241 CLR 118

King v Bevan; Ex parte Elias and Gordon (1942) 66 CLR 452
Wilson v Binderhoffer [2014] FCCA 2940
Carlton & United Breweries Ltd v Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 543
New South Wales Department of Housing v Moskalev (2007) 158 FCR 206
Phillip Morris Inc v Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd (1981) 148 CLR 457
Fencott and Others v Muller and Another (1983) 152 CLR 570
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally (1999) 198 CLR 511;
Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Limited (2000) 104 FCR 564;
General Steel Industries v Commissioner for Railways (1964) 112 CLR 125;
Ball v Morgan & Anor [2001] FMCA 127;
Fetherston v Peninsula Health (No.2) [2004] FMCA 594
Genovese v BGC Construction Pty Ltd ( No.2) [2007] FMCA 601
Cann v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (No.6) [2011] FMCA 912
Cate v International Flavours & Fragrances (Aust) Pty Ltd [2007] FMCA 36
Boston Commercial Services Pty Ltd v GE Capital Finance Australasia Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1352
Petrotimor Comphania de Petroleos SARL v Commonwealth of Australia [2003] FCFCA 82

Applicant:

SUSAN BUNNING

Respondent:

THE CORPORATION OF THE TRUSTEE OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF BRISBANE TRADING AS CENTACARE

File Number:

BRG 896 of 2014

Judgment of:

Judge Vasta

Hearing date:

28 January 2015

Date of Last Submission:

3 February 2015

Delivered at:

Brisbane

Delivered on:

11 February 2015

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr J.C. Dwyer

Solicitors for the Applicant:

M + K Lawyers

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Minter Ellison Lawyers

ORDERS

That the Respondent’s application for summary dismissal be granted.
That the Initiating Application filed on 13 October 2014 be dismissed.
That the parties be at liberty to apply in relation to costs.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AT BRISBANE

BRG 896 of 2014

SUSAN BUNNING

Applicant

And

THE CORPORATION OF THE TRUSTEE OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF BRISBANE TRADING AS CENTACARE

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

This action is brought by the Respondent, who seeks summary dismissal of the application filed by the Applicant on 13 October 2014.
That application alleged unlawful discrimination against the Applicant by the Respondent, who had been her employer. The grounds of this application were contained in a statement of claim also filed on 13 October 2014.
The orders and relief sought by the Applicant are contained in paragraph 28 of the Statement of Claim and are as follows:
“28. The Applicant seeks the following orders against the Respondent:
(a) A declaration…

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.

Continue reading Bunning v Centacare

Details

AGLC: Bunning v Centacare [2015] FCCA 280
Case: [2015] FCCA 280
Decision Date: 11 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Bunning v Centacare*, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia was asked to determine whether to summarily dismiss an application brought by the applicant, Ms Bunning, against the respondent, Centacare. Ms Bunning alleged that Centacare had discriminated against her on the basis of her sex, contrary to the *Sex Discrimination Act 1984* (Cth).

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether Ms Bunning's application had a reasonable prospect of success, such that it should not be summarily dismissed. This required the Court to consider the nature of the alleged discrimination and whether the evidence, if accepted, would establish a contravention of the *Sex Discrimination Act 1984* (Cth). The Court also considered the application of section 18 of the *Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021* (Cth), which allows for the summary dismissal of proceedings that lack merit.

Judge Vasta reasoned that the applicant's claim was based on a misunderstanding of the respondent's actions and the relevant legal provisions. The Court found that the evidence did not support an inference of sex discrimination. Instead, the respondent's decision was based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons related to the applicant's conduct and the operational requirements of the respondent. The Court emphasised that for a claim of unlawful discrimination to succeed, there must be a causal link between the protected attribute (in this case, sex) and the adverse treatment. No such link was established.

Consequently, the Court ordered that the application be summarily dismissed.

Orders