Legal Research
Cases
Ellis v Target Australia Pty Ltd

Ellis v Target Australia Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 8 July 2019 40 min read

Contents

On this page

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ELLIS v TARGET AUSTRALIA PTY LTD [2019] FCCA 1820

Catchwords:

HUMAN RIGHTS – Disability discrimination – access to premises – application in a case to dismiss application.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application in a case to dismiss application – application for summary dismissal on the basis of no reasonable prospect of success – test for no reasonable prospect of success.

Legislation:

Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth), ss.46PH, 46PO, 46PR
Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth), ss.5, 6
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), rr.1.05, 1.06, 12.02, 13.10, schs.1, 3
Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth), s.17A
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s.31A
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), rr.16.02, 16.21, 26.01
Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth)

Cases cited:

Anchorage Capital Partners Pty Ltd v ACPA Pty Ltd (No.3) [2015] FCA 1436; (2015) 331 ALR 512; (2015) 116 IPR 159
Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Cassimatis & Anor [2013] FCA 641; (2013) 220 FCR 256; (2013) 302 ALR 671; (2013) 94 ACSR 623
Betfair Pty Ltd v Racing New South Wales & Anor [2010] FCAFC 133; (2010) 189 FCR 356; (2010) 273 ALR 664
Butorac v WIN Corp Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 1503
C2C Investments Pty Ltd, in the matter of C2C Investments Pty Ltd v Leigh(No 3) [2012] FCA 680
Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd v Du Bois [2016] FCA 1115
Cavill Business Solutions Pty Ltd v Jackson [2005] WASC 138
Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd v Manock [2007] HCA 60; (2007) 232 CLR 245; (2007) 82 ALJR 303; (2007) 241 ALR 468; [2007] Aust Tort Reports 81-923
Charles v Fuji Xerox Australia Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1531; (2000) 105 FCR 573; (2000) 105 IR 153
Culleton v Balwyn Nominees Pty Ltd [2017] FCAFC 8; (2017) 343 ALR 632; (2017) 14 ABC(NS) 516
Dowling v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2008] FCA 59
Dye v Commonwealth Securities Limited (No 2) [2010] FCAFC 118; (2010) 63 AILR 101-302
Employment Services Australia Pty Ltd v Poniatowska [2010] FCAFC 92; (2010) 62 AILR 101-252
Fortron Automotive Treatments Pty Ltd v Jones (No.2) [2006] FCA 1401
Fuller v Toms & Ors [2012] FCA 27; (2012) 247 FCR 440

Hunter Valley Development Pty Ltd v Cohen (1984) 3 FCR 344; (1984) 58 ALR 305; (1984) 7 ALD 315
Jackson v P/T Constructions WA Pty Ltd [2015] FCCA 1014

Leica Geosystems Pty Ltd v Koudstaal [2012] FCA 1337
Lee v Smith & Ors (No.2) [2007] FMCA 1092; [2007] EOC 93-465
Lion-Dairy & Drinks Pty Limited v Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Limited [2013] FCA 869

Manday Investments Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (No.3) [2012] FCA 751

Modra v Victoria [2012] FCA 240; (2012) 205 FCR 445; (2012) 291 ALR 429
Myatt v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2016] FCA 133
Oldham v Capgemini Australia Pty Ltd & Anor [2015] FCA 1149;

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 Ellis v Target Australia Pty 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: [2019] FCCA 1820
Decision Date: 8 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Ellis v Target Australia Pty Ltd*, the applicant, Ms Ellis, alleged that Target Australia Pty Ltd had discriminated against her on the ground of her disability by failing to provide her with adequate access to its premises. The matter came before Judge Antoni Lucev in the Magistrates Court of Western Australia. Target Australia applied for the summary dismissal of Ms Ellis's application, contending that it had no reasonable prospect of success.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether Ms Ellis's application disclosed a cause of action with a reasonable prospect of success, thereby justifying its continuation, or whether it should be summarily dismissed. This required the Court to consider the applicable legal test for summary dismissal, specifically the threshold for demonstrating that an application has "no reasonable prospect of success."

Judge Lucev applied the principles governing summary dismissal, which require a high degree of certainty that the claim is bound to fail. The Court considered the evidence presented by both parties in relation to the alleged disability discrimination and access issues. After reviewing the material, the Court found that Ms Ellis's application did not meet the threshold for summary dismissal, as there were arguable grounds upon which her claim could proceed.

Consequently, the Court dismissed Target Australia's application for summary dismissal, allowing Ms Ellis's case to continue.

Orders