Picos v Hyatt Hotel Canberra

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Picos v Hyatt Hotel Canberra [2015] FCA 101

Citation:	Picos v Hyatt Hotel Canberra [2015] FCA 101
Parties:	CONNIE LOUISE PICOS v HYATT HOTEL CANBERRA
File number(s):	NSD 23 of 2015
Judge(s):	YATES J
Date of judgment:	19 February 2015
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application to strike out notice of address for service – application refused
Legislation:	Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) s 46PH Business Names Registration Act 2011 (Cth) Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 75 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 9.51, 9.52 Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth)
Date of hearing:	19 February 2015
Place:	Sydney
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	18
Counsel for the Applicant:	The Applicant did not appear
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr M Orlov
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Snedden Hall & Gallop Lawyers

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	NSD 23 of 2015

BETWEEN:	CONNIE LOUISE PICOS Applicant
AND:	HYATT HOTEL CANBERRA Respondent

JUDGE:	YATES J
DATE OF ORDER:	19 FEBRUARY 2015
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicant’s interlocutory application seeking an order that the notice of address for service filed by the respondent be struck out, be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs.

Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	NSD 23 of 2015

BETWEEN:	CONNIE LOUISE PICOS Applicant
AND:	HYATT HOTEL CANBERRA Respondent

JUDGE:	YATES J
DATE:	19 FEBRUARY 2015
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant, Miss Picos, has filed an interlocutory application seeking an order that the notice of address for service filed by the respondent be struck out.  She has also sought other relief: see [7] below.

2. On 12 January 2015, the applicant filed an originating application, dated 9 January 2015, against the respondent seeking relief based on alleged unlawful discrimination under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth). The respondent was named in the originating application as “Hyatt Hotel Canberra”. This is an apparent business name.

3. A proceeding can be started against a business name in the circumstances provided in Div 9.5 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (the Rules). The combined effect of rr 9.51 and 9.52 is that a proceeding can only be started against a business name where the proceeding relates to anything done, omitted to be done or otherwise related to a business carried on by a person under that business name, and the person’s name is not registered in a Register of a State or Territory in which the business is carried on, showing the matters referred to in r 9.51(b) (namely, the person’s name and residential address).

4. A respondent who has been served with an originating application must file a notice of address for service in accordance with r 5.02 of the Rules. If an originating application is brought against a business name, the person must file an…