Jones v Westpac Banking Corporation

In the case of Jones v Westpac Banking Corporation, the applicant sought leave to apply to the Federal Court of Australia, alleging unlawful discrimination by Westpac pursuant to the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth). The application for leave was made following a decision by the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) not to recommend a conciliation or investigation into the applicant’s complaint. The court was tasked with determining whether there was a reasonably arguable case for the applicant to appeal the AHRC’s decision.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had demonstrated a reasonably arguable case that her allegations of poor customer service by Westpac were linked to her race, sex, or disability. The court considered the principles outlined in James v WorkPower Inc [2018] FCA 2083 and Budini v Sunnyfield [2019] FCA 2164, which established that the application for leave should focus on whether the claims were reasonably arguable, not fanciful. The court also evaluated various other factors, including the thoroughness of the AHRC’s handling of the complaint, the seriousness of the allegations, and whether the applicant had delayed in lodging her complaint.

The court found that the applicant had not established a reasonably arguable case that her poor treatment by Westpac was linked to her race, sex, or disability. The applicant’s allegations were considered to be plainly unmeritorious. Additionally, the court found that the applicant had not demonstrated that the AHRC’s process was flawed in a way that would warrant further judicial review. Consequently, the court refused the application for leave to appeal the AHRC’s decision.

ORDERS:
1. Pursuant to s 46PO(3A) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth), leave to make application to this Court be refused to the Applicant.