Dunstan v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Dunstan v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission involves the applicant, a member of the Commonwealth Public Service, who alleges racial and sexual discrimination and sexual harassment in his employment between 1983 and 1993. The applicant has also made claims against Comcare, asserting disability discrimination in relation to the rejection of his claim for detriment. The applicant has sought relief under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 against the first respondent for the failure to investigate his complaint. The primary legal issues revolve around whether certain paragraphs of the applicant's statement of claim should be struck out for being irrelevant or insufficiently detailed to meet procedural fairness requirements.

The court determined that paragraphs 7-9 of the statement of claim, which were acknowledged as irrelevant to the ADJR claim, would be struck out. Furthermore, the court found that paragraphs 34-39 did not adequately detail the material facts necessary to establish the cause of action for misfeasance in public office. These paragraphs were also struck out to ensure procedural fairness to the respondents. The court emphasised that a statement of claim must contain a summary of material facts that, if proven, would support the cause of action.

The court ordered that the applicant must provide detailed particulars regarding various communications and submissions to meet the requirements of the Federal Court Rules. This includes specifying whether communications were oral or written, identifying the parties involved, and detailing the meanings conveyed. The court also denied leave to amend the amended statement of claim filed in 1999.