Chen v Monash University

Case [2015] FCA 130


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, 106
Cases 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 – cited
Date 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
Applicant

AND:

MONASH UNIVERSITY
First Respondent

CHRIS DAVIES
Second Respondent

GEORGE 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
Applicant

AND:

MONASH UNIVERSITY
First Respondent

CHRIS DAVIES
Second Respondent

GEORGE SIMON
Third Respondent

JUDGE:

TRACEY J

DATE:

27 FEBRUARY 2015

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. 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

Details
AGLC
Chen v Monash University [2015] FCA 130
Case
[2015] FCA 130
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Chen brought a claim against Monash University, alleging she had been subjected to sexual discrimination or harassment in the workplace. Chen also sought to claim for victimisation. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The court was required to determine whether Chen's claims were within its jurisdiction and whether the claims themselves were substantiated.

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.