Hanson v Burston

The case of Hanson v Burston involved an interlocutory application for a strike out and/or summary dismissal of the applicant's Amended Points of Claim (APOC). The applicant, Ms Hanson, alleged that the respondent, Mr Burston, had contravened section 94(1) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (SD Act) and that the Court lacked jurisdiction under section 46PO(3) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) to determine some claims pleaded in the APOC that were not included in her complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission. The application also challenged whether Ms Hanson had reasonable prospects of success in relation to the entire claim in the originating application and APOC.

The court had to decide whether it had jurisdiction to determine whether Mr Burston contravened section 94(1) of the SD Act and if it had jurisdiction under section 46PO(3) of the AHRC Act to determine some claims pleaded in the APOC that were not included in Ms Hanson's complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission. The court also had to consider whether Ms Hanson had reasonable prospects of success in relation to the entire claim in the originating application and APOC. The court concluded that it had jurisdiction to determine a civil case of victimisation under section 94(1) of the SD Act and that some claims pleaded in the APOC could be summarily dismissed or struck out, but the balance of the claims were arguable or could be struck out but allowed to be re-pleaded.

The court found that some claims pleaded in the APOC to be summarily dismissed or struck out, but the balance of claims were arguable or could be struck out but allowed to be re-pleaded. The court also found that Mr Burston had not succeeded in obtaining summary judgment for all of Ms Hanson's case, but he had achieved substantial success in obtaining summary judgment for key aspects and in requiring her to re-plead other substantial parts of her case. However, his argument as to jurisdiction, which always required determination, had failed. The court concluded that Ms Hanson should pay half of Mr Burston's costs of and incidental to the interlocutory application but would instead hear from the parties on costs.

The court ordered that the parties confer and within 14 days or such longer time as may be sought and allowed, submit agreed or competing draft orders to give effect to the reasons for judgment and for the future conduct of the proceeding, including any necessary case management hearing. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.