FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| GAMA v QANTAS AIRWAYS LTD | [2006] FMCA 11 |
| HUMAN RIGHTS – Race and disability discrimination in employment – interlocutory application to strike out certain allegations from the applicant’s points of claim – whether allegations of matters pre-1998 can be heard – whether proceedings of this nature fall under the ambit of s.14 Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) – whether the points of claim contain allegations which arise out of the same or substantially the same acts, omissions or practices that were the subject of the terminated complaint. |
| Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986, s.46PO Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), s.14(1) Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s.79 |
| Shahbahram Ardeshirian v Robe River Iron Associates (1993) 116 ALR 173 Charles v Fuji Xerox Australia Pty Ltd [2000] 105 FCR 573 Travers by her next friend, Travers v New South Wales [2000] FCA 1565 Bender v Bovis Lend Lease Pty Ltd [2003] 175 FLR 446 |
| Applicant: | WILLIAM CHARLES GAMA |
| Respondent: | QANTAS AIRWAYS LTD |
| File Number: | SYG 1488 of 2005 |
| Judgment of: | Raphael FM |
| Hearing date: | 22 December 2005 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 22 December 2005 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 16 January 2006 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Ms P Gormly |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Agostini Jarrett Pty Ltd |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Ms K Eastman |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Minter Ellison |
ORDERS
The applicant is required to file and serve an amended Points of Claim to give effect to these reasons within 14 days.
Costs of the application to be costs in the cause.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 1488 of 2005
| WILLIAMS CHARLES GAMA |
Applicant
And
| QANTAS AIRWAYS LTD |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The applicant was a long time employee of Qantas Airways. He joined the company in February 1984 as an aircraft engineer at Mascot. He left its employment on 25 October 2002. He was involved in a work accident in 1992 and further work related incidents in 1996, 1998 and 2000. He took time off work in relation to these incidents and claimed workers compensation. The applicant alleges that during his employment he was the victim of racial and disability discrimination. On 18 July 2003 Mr Gama completed a complaint form and forwarded it to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (“HREOC”). He complained about two individuals at the Qantas Heaving Engineering Division in Mascot. On page 3 of the complaint form in response to the question “When did this happen?” the applicant has responded with the words “From 1998 to date and continuing.” Upon receipt of the complaint the matter was considered by a delegate of the president who wrote to Qantas on 26 September 2003 requesting a response. In paragraph 9 of that letter the delegate says:
“Under section 46PH(1)(b) of the HREOCA, I have discretion not to inquire into a complaint where more than 12 months has elapsed since the alleged act. In deciding whether or not to exercise this discretion I have regard to such…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Gama v Qantas Airways 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2006] FMCA 11
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff's initial Points of Claim were sufficiently detailed to comply with the procedural requirements of the Federal Court. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the points of claim provided adequate particulars to inform the defendant of the nature and circumstances of the claim. The court examined the points of claim in light of the Federal Court Rules and previous judicial decisions regarding the necessity for specificity in legal claims.
In its reasoning, the court found that the points of claim did not sufficiently detail the allegations, particularly concerning the specific acts of negligence by Qantas. The court held that while the points of claim must be concise, they must also provide enough detail to allow the defendant to understand the basis of the claim and to prepare a responsive defence. The court concluded that the points of claim were insufficiently particularised and ordered the plaintiff to file and serve an amended document that complied with the procedural requirements. Additionally, the court ordered that the costs of the application be borne by the plaintiff.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The applicant is required to file and serve an amended Points of Claim to give effect to these reasons within 14 days.
2.
Costs of the application to be costs in the cause.
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.