Casey v Rebel Sport Ltd - [2017] FCCA 1470

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CASEY v REBEL SPORT LTD & ANOR

[2017] FCCA 1470

Catchwords:
HUMAN RIGHTS – Alleged breaches of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) – whether there is an arguable case for the relief sought – no arguable case raised by the application.

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Application for an extension of time to make a competent application to the Court – consideration of factors – application refused.

Legislation:

Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth), s.46PO

Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), ss.28A, 28B

Cases cited:

Ferrus v Qantas Airways Ltd [2006] FCA 812; (2006) 155 IR 28
Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen [1984] FCA 176; (1984) 3 FCR 344
Phillips v Australian Girls Choir [2001] FMCA 109
Drew v Bates& Anor [2005] FMCA 1221
Low v Commonwealth of Australia [2001] FCA 702

Applicant:

ANNABELLE CASEY

First Respondent:

REBEL SPORT LTD

Second Respondent:

JOEL MERVYN-JONES

File Number:

SYG 147 of 2017

Judgment of:

Judge Nicholls

Hearing date:

Matter decided on the papers

Date of Last Submission:

28 April 2017

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

3 July 2017

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Mr Viney as agent for Tony Cox Lawyers

Solicitors for the First Respondent:

FCB Lawyers and Consultants

Counsel for the First Respondent:

Ms K Edwards

Second Respondent:

No appearance

ORDERS

The application for an extension of time made on 17 January 2017 is refused.
There be no order as to costs.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 147 of 2017

ANNABELLE CASEY

Applicant

And

REBEL SPORT LTD

First Respondent

JOEL MERVYN-JONES

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

On 17 January 2017, Ms Annabelle Casey lodged with the Court’s Registry, through her solicitors, an application said to have been made pursuant to s.46PO of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) (“AHRC Act”). That application sought to allege breaches of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (“SDA”) by Rebel Sport Ltd (“the first respondent”) (by whom she was formerly employed), and a Mr Joel Mervyn-Jones (“the second respondent”) (an employee of that company at the relevant time).
Ms Casey had made a complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission (“AHRC”) in March 2016. The AHRC terminated that complaint, and issued a certificate of termination dated 25 October 2016. There is no dispute between the parties that pursuant to s.46PO(2) of the AHRC Act, any application made pursuant to s.46PO of the AHRC Act must be made to the Court within 60 days of the date of the certificate of termination.
In the current case, no competent application was made within that statutory time limit. That is, no application was made on or before 28 December 2016 (see [4] and footnote 6 of the first respondent’s written submissions filed on 10 March 2017). Other than for the relevant statutory time limit, the application would have met the requirements to make it competent. However it was said not to have been sent to the Court’s…

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 Casey v Rebel Sport 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: [2017] FCCA 1470
Decision Date: 3 July 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Casey, brought proceedings against Rebel Sport Ltd alleging breaches of the *Sex Discrimination Act 1984* (Cth). The court was required to determine whether the applicant had raised an arguable case for the relief sought under the Act. Additionally, the court considered an application for an extension of time to make a competent application to the Court.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the material before it to assess whether the applicant's claims disclosed an arguable case of unlawful discrimination. The court also considered the relevant factors for granting an extension of time for a procedural application.

Ultimately, the court found that no arguable case had been raised by the application. Consequently, the application for an extension of time was refused.

Orders