FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Joy v UGL Operations and Maintenance Pty Limited [2021] FCA 1282
File number: WAD 31 of 2021 Judgment of: MCKERRACHER J Date of judgment: 21 October 2021 Catchwords: HUMAN RIGHTS – application for summary dismissal and strike out of parts of statement of claim – claim of racial discrimination pursuant to ss 9, 15 and 18A of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) – whether certain allegations disclose no reasonable cause of action – whether certain allegations are scandalous, evasive or ambiguous Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 31A(2)
Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) ss 9, 9(1), 9(1A), 15, 15(1)(b), 18A
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 26.01
Cases cited: Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Cassimatis [2013] FCA 641; (2013) 220 FCR 256
Chandrasekaran v Commonwealth (No 3) [2020] FCA 1629
Commonwealth v McEvoy [1999] FCA 105; (1999) 94 FCR 341
Elston v Commonwealth [2013] FCA 108
Faruqi v Latham [2018] FCA 1328
Morton v Mitchell Products Pty Ltd [1996] FCA 828
Singh v Khan (No 2) [2021] FCA 463
Spencer v Commonwealth [2010] HCA 28; (2010) 241 CLR 118
Division: General Division Registry: Western Australia National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Number of paragraphs: 52 Date of hearing: 29 September 2021 Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person Counsel for the Respondent: Mr ND Ellery Solicitor for the Respondent: Corrs Chambers Westgarth ORDERS
WAD 31 of 2021 BETWEEN: NAVIN VELLAPARAMBIL JOY
Applicant
AND: UGL OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PTY LIMITED
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
MCKERRACHER J
DATE OF ORDER:
21 OCTOBER 2021
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The amended statement of claim be struck out in part and the causes of action dismissed in part.
2.There be liberty to plead within 30 days a fresh further amended statement of claim provided that it conforms with the reasons for this judgment.
3.Costs of this application be in the cause.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
MCKERRACHER J:
The respondent, UGL Operations and Maintenance Pty Limited, seeks to have parts of the amended statement of claim filed by the applicant (Mr Joy) summarily dismissed or struck out. Mr Joy appears for himself. Mr Joy contends that he has suffered loss as a result of racial discrimination in connection with his employment by UGL, on the basis that he is Asian and has a skin colour which is not Caucasian. UGL contends that a number of Mr Joy’s claims are unsustainable as a matter of law, and that others should be struck out as being embarrassing (without leave to re-plead). There is evidence in support of the UGL application making it clear that UGL has afforded Mr Joy previous opportunities to attempt to re-plead his claim. UGL says that it is obvious…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Joy v UGL Operations and Maintenance Pty Limited 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
- [2021] FCA 1282
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court meticulously examined each part of the pleading, identifying those sections that were either unsupported or legally flawed. It ruled that some parts of the pleading would be summarily dismissed, while others would be struck out with no leave to re-plead. Additionally, certain parts were to be dismissed with leave to re-plead, subject to the court's rulings. The court also highlighted that the entire pleading should be re-drawn to avoid confusion, rather than attempting to reconstruct the surviving parts with those to be re-pleaded. Notably, the court emphasised that re-pleading should be confined to the parts identified in the ruling.
The court's reasoning was grounded in the need to ensure that only legally sound and substantiated claims proceed. The decision resulted in the dismissal of certain claims, striking out others without leave to re-plead, and allowing re-pleading of specific parts related to discriminatory performance reviews. The court's final orders dictated that costs should be in the cause, reflecting the mixed outcome of the proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.