Picos v Australian Federal Police

In the matter of Picos v Australian Federal Police, the Federal Court of Australia was tasked with resolving multiple interlocutory applications, including a request for summary dismissal, a request to amend the originating application, and a request to disqualify the judicial officer on the grounds of apprehended bias. The applicant, Ms. Picos, alleged sexual harassment and unlawful discrimination by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and sought damages of $1 billion. The AFP applied for summary dismissal on the grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction over the matter. Additionally, Ms. Picos sought leave to amend her originating application to include claims of trespass and assault and to amend the relief sought. She also sought the disqualification of the judicial officer based on the officer's conduct in a separate proceeding and alleged fraud on the part of the AFP's legal representatives.

The court was required to decide whether the statutory preconditions for entertaining a claim of unlawful discrimination under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) were satisfied, whether the communication from the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) amounted to termination of a complaint for the purposes of section 46PO of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth), and whether the amendments to the originating application would "cure" the lack of jurisdiction in the unlawful discrimination claim. The court also needed to determine whether the application for disqualification should be granted based on the grounds of apprehended bias.

The court dismissed the application for disqualification, finding that a fair-minded lay observer would not apprehend bias. The court held that the process prescribed by the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) was an exclusive regime for remedying contraventions of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), and that the statutory preconditions for the court to entertain a claim of unlawful discrimination were not satisfied because the AHRC had not terminated the complaint. The court further held that the additional claims of trespass and assault did not fall within the original or accrued federal jurisdiction and that the amendments would not cure the lack of jurisdiction. Therefore, the applications to amend the originating application were refused. Finally, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the proceeding on the grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding.

The court dismissed the applications by Ms. Picos for disqualification and to amend her originating application. The originating application filed on 30 July 2014 was summarily dismissed under section 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and rule 26.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), with costs awarded to the respondent. The court also noted that the question of whether leave should be granted to file a further affidavit in the proceeding was moot.