Horman v Distribution Group Ltd

[2002] FCA 219

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Horman v Distribution Group Ltd [2002] FCA 219

MAEVIDA HORMAN v DISTRIBUTION GROUP LTD t/as REPCO AUTO PARTS

N 1580 OF 2001

EMMETT J
22 FEBRUARY 2002
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 1580 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	MAEVIDA HORMAN APPLICANT
AND:	DISTRIBUTION GROUP LIMITED t/as REPCO AUTO PARTS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	EMMETT J
DATE OF ORDER:	22 FEBRUARY 2002
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        the application be dismissed; and

2.        the applicant pay the respondent’s costs for the application.

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 1580 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	MAEVIDA HORMAN APPLICANT
AND:	DISTRIBUTION GROUP LIMITED t/as REPCO AUTO PARTS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	EMMETT J
DATE:	22 FEBRUARY 2002
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. I have before me an application pursuant to Order 52 rule 15(2) of the Federal Court Rules for the Court to give leave to Maevida Horman (“the applicant”) to file and serve a notice of appeal from orders made by Raphael FM on 27 July 2001 and 3 September 2001.  The proceeding before Raphael FM was a claim under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) by the applicant against the respondent, who was at the relevant time her employer.

2. By his orders of 27 July 2001 Raphael FM:

   (1)upheld in part a claim under s 21(a) of the Sex Discrimination Act;

   (2)upheld in part a claim under s 14(2)(d) of the Sex Discrimination Act;

   (3)dismissed a claim under s 7(1)(b) and (c) of the Sex Discrimination Act;

   (4)dismissed a claim in respect of unlawful termination in breach of ss 7 and 14 of the Sex Discrimination Act;

   (5)upheld in part a claim under s 18(c) of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth);

   (6)ordered the respondent to pay the applicant the sum of $12,500 by way of damages.

3. At the time of making those orders the learned magistrate had heard no argument as to costs.  He indicated, in the reasons that he published on 27 July 2001, that he was prepared to hold any order in respect of costs in abeyance for a period of 14 days, so that the parties could appear before him and argue the matter within that time.  He indicated that in the event that the parties did not wish to argue the matter of costs, then the orders that he would make would be that each party should bear its own costs of the proceedings.

4. It appears that, within that period, the respondent indicated that it desired the opportunity of arguing the question of costs.  The first time at which it was possible for counsel and Raphael FM to reconvene for the purpose of arguing costs was 3 September 2001.  On that day, after hearing argument, and for the reasons published on that day, Raphael FM ordered the respondent to pay the applicant’s…