FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Chen v Monash University [2015] FCA 130
Citation: Chen v Monash University [2015] FCA 130 Parties: QIZHI CHEN v MONASH UNIVERSITY, CHRIS DAVIES and GEORGE SIMON File number: VID 857 of 2013 Judge: TRACEY J Date of judgment: 27 February 2015 Corrigendum: 23 March 2015 Catchwords: HUMAN RIGHTS – discrimination – whether employee subjected to sexual discrimination or harassment in the workplace
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – whether court has jurisdiction to hear claim for victimisation
Legislation: Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) – s 140
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Act 1986 (Cth) – s 46PO, Pt IIB
Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth)
Sex DiscriminationAct 1984 (Cth) – ss 5, 14, 28A, 28B, 94, 105, 106Cases cited: Bahonko v Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology [2006] FCA 1325 – cited
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 – cited
Charles v Fuji Xerox Australia Pty Ltd (2000) 105 FCR 573 – cited
Crvenkovic v La Trobe University [2009] FCA 374 – cited
Maghiar v State of Western Australia [2002] FCA 262 – cited
Qantas Airways Limited v Gama (2008) 167 FCR 537 – cited
Walker v State of Victoria [2012] FCAFC 38 – citedDate of hearing: 3-7, 11-13 March, 2-6 June and 15-16 July 2014 Place: Melbourne Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 270 Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person Counsel for the Respondents: Mr J Bourke SC and Ms R Nelson Solicitor for the Respondents: Lander and Rogers FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Chen v Monash University [2015] FCA 130
CORRIGENDUM
1.In paragraph 2 of the Reasons for Judgment, in the first sentence, the word “about” should be inserted between “those” and “whom” in the second line.
I certify that the preceding one (1) numbered paragraph is a true copy of the Corrigendum to the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Tracey. Associate:
Dated: 23 March 2105
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
VID 857 of 2013
BETWEEN: QIZHI CHEN
ApplicantAND: MONASH UNIVERSITY
First RespondentCHRIS DAVIES
Second RespondentGEORGE SIMON
Third Respondent
JUDGE:
TRACEY J
DATE OF ORDER:
27 FEBRUARY 2015
WHERE MADE:
MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application be dismissed with costs.
Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
VID 857 of 2013
BETWEEN: QIZHI CHEN
ApplicantAND: MONASH UNIVERSITY
First RespondentCHRIS DAVIES
Second RespondentGEORGE SIMON
Third Respondent
JUDGE:
TRACEY J
DATE:
27 FEBRUARY 2015
PLACE:
MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The applicant Dr Qizhi Chen, has made some 53 claims of sex discrimination and sexual harassment against Monash University and some of its senior academic staff. The discrimination and harassment were said to have occurred over a period of five years between 2008 and 2013. During this time Dr Chen was employed by the University as a Senior Lecturer and, later, an Associate Professor in the Department of…
Continue reading Chen v Monash University
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Chen v Monash University [2015] FCA 130
- Case
- [2015] FCA 130
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In addressing the jurisdictional aspect of the case, the court considered whether it had the authority to hear Chen's claims for victimisation. The court examined the relevant legislative framework and found that the provisions under which Chen sought to bring her claims did not extend to cover victimisation as a distinct cause of action. The court held that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the claim for victimisation. Regarding the merits of the discrimination and harassment claims, the court found that the evidence presented did not support Chen's allegations.
As a result, the court dismissed Chen's application. The dismissal included an order for Chen to pay the costs of the proceedings. This outcome was consistent with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011, which governs the entry of orders in such circumstances.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application be dismissed with costs.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.