Ferrus v Qantas Airways Ltd

The matter of Ferrus v Qantas Airways Ltd was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The applicant, Ferrus, was an employee of Qantas Airways Ltd who was dismissed from his position as a long haul flight attendant on 10 June 2003. Ferrus sought reinstatement in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) but his application was dismissed by Richards C. He subsequently sought leave to appeal to the Full Bench of the AIRC, but this was refused. Ferrus then sought to have the matter considered by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) on the basis of unlawful discrimination. However, the delegate of the President of HREOC found that the matter had been adequately dealt with by the AIRC and terminated the complaint. Ferrus sought to have the matter reconsidered by the Federal Court under s 46PO(2) HREOC Act.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant was entitled to an extension of time to file his application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court and whether there was any merit in the substantive case of the applicant. The court had to determine whether the applicant's delay in filing the application was adequately explained and whether there was any merit in the applicant's claim that he was unlawfully discriminated against by Qantas Airways Ltd.

The court found that the applicant's delay in filing the application was not adequately explained. The court noted that the applicant had filed the application more than six months after the Notice of Termination was issued by HREOC, which was beyond the time limit set out in s 46PO(2) HREOC Act. The court also found that there was no merit in the substantive case of the applicant. The court noted that the applicant had been given numerous opportunities to provide an explanation for his conduct and that he had not provided an adequate explanation for the irregularities in relation to the Barplus service. The court found that the respondent had acted reasonably in terminating the applicant's employment.

The court dismissed the application filed by the applicant on 21 January 2005 for leave to extend time pursuant to s 46PO(2) HREOC Act. The court also dismissed the Notices of Motion filed by the respondent on 5 July 2005 and the applicant on 26 April 2006. The court ordered that the applicant pay the costs of the respondent in the proceeding, to be taxed if not otherwise agreed.