Legal Research
Cases
Ellis v Wadjemup Trading (No.3)

Ellis v Wadjemup Trading (No.3)

Case [2018] FCCA 3075 16 November 2018

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ELLIS v WADJEMUP TRADING PTY LTD ATF WADJEMUP UNIT TRUST T/A ROTTNEST EXPRESS & ORS (No.3)

[2018] FCCA 3075

Catchwords:
HUMAN RIGHTS – Disability discrimination claim – application in a case to strike out statement of claim – alternative application in a case for summary dismissal of claim.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Disability discrimination claim – application in a case to strike out statement of claim – alternative application in a case for summary dismissal of claim – whether failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action – whether pleading irrelevant or embarrassing – whether any reasonable prospect of success.

Legislation:

Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth), ss.46PH, 46PO
Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth), s.17A
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), rr.1.05, 13.03B, 13.10
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s.31A
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), rr.16.21, 26.01

Cases cited:

Allstate Life Insurance Company v Australian & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (1994) 217 ALR 226
Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Pauls Ltd [2000] ATPR 41-747
Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Cassimatis [2013] FCA 641; (2013) 220 FCR 256; (2013) 302 ALR 671; (2013) 94 ACSR 623
Dandaven v Harbeth Holdings Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 955
Eggerth v EPI International Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 1547
Ellis v FJM Property Pty Ltd [2016] FCCA 808
Ellis v Green Tower Pty Ltd Trustee for the Green Tower Trust (Trading as Hopscotch Garden Centre and Tearooms) [2017] FCCA 1390
Ellis v Green Tower Pty Ltd Trustee for the Green Tower Trust (Trading as Hopscotch Garden Centre and Tearooms) [2018] FCA 339
Ellis v Kanyana Wildlife Rehabilitation Centre Inc [2017] FCA 1543
Ellis v Kanyana Wildlife Rehabilitation Centre Inc [2017] FCCA 89
Ellis v Kanyana Wildlife Rehabilitation Centre Inc [2017] FCCA 2028
Ellis v Left Bank Holdings Pty Ltd [2017] FCCA 90

Ellis v Rottnest Lodge (1989) Pty Ltd trading as Rottnest Lodge (No 2) [2017] FCCA 190
Ellis v Silver Vision Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] FCCA 151; (2017) 318 FLR 111
Ellis v Silver Vision Pty Ltd trading as Arirang Korean BBQ Restaurant & Café [2018] FCA 333
Ellis v Swan Taxis Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 1542
Ellis v Swan Taxis Pty Ltd [2017] FCCA 1795
Ellis v Wadjemup Trading Pty Ltd ATF Wadjemup Unit Trust T/A Rottnest Express & Ors [2017] FCCA 88
Ellis v Wadjemup Trading Pty Ltd ATF Wadjemup Unit Trust T/A Rottnest Express & Ors (No 2) [2017] FCCA 960
George v Fletcher (Trustee) [2010] FCAFC 53
Gill v iiNet Limited [2016] FCA 1273
John Holland Pty Ltd v The Maritime Union of Australia [2009] FCA 437
Jefferson Ford Pty Ltd v Ford Motor Company of Australia Ltd & Ors [2008] FCAFC 60; (2008) 167 FCR 372; (2008) 246 ALR 465; (2008) 103 ALD 505; [2008] ATPR 42-231
Lawrenson Light Metal Die Casting Pty Ltd (in liq) v Cosmick Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 753
Leica Geosystems Pty Ltd v…

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.

Continue reading Ellis v Wadjemup Trading (No.3)

Details

AGLC: Ellis v Wadjemup Trading (No.3) [2018] FCCA 3075
Case: [2018] FCCA 3075
Decision Date: 16 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in this matter were Ellis, the applicant, and Wadjemup Trading (No.3), the respondent. The dispute concerned a disability discrimination claim brought by the applicant. The respondent sought to strike out the applicant's statement of claim or, in the alternative, for summary dismissal of the claim. The proceedings were before Judge Antoni Lucev of the District Court of Western Australia.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant's statement of claim failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action, was irrelevant or embarrassing, or whether there was no reasonable prospect of success. These questions arose in the context of the respondent's applications to strike out the claim and for summary dismissal.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the principles governing applications to strike out a statement of claim and for summary dismissal. These principles require the court to assess whether the pleading, read broadly, discloses a cause of action, and whether there is a real prospect of success. The court examined the specific allegations made in the statement of claim to ascertain if they met the necessary threshold for a disability discrimination claim. The court's reasoning focused on whether the pleaded facts, if proven, would establish the elements of the alleged discrimination.

The court ultimately dismissed the respondent's applications.

Orders