Picos v Servcorp Limited

In Picos v Servcorp Limited, the Federal Court considered a series of claims brought by Ms. Picos against various respondents, including individuals and entities such as Servcorp Limited and several judicial officers. The primary disputes centred around allegations of sexual harassment and unlawful discrimination, as well as claims for interim injunctions and damages. Additionally, Ms. Picos sought the disqualification of Justice Perry on the grounds of apprehended bias and filed various interlocutory applications throughout the proceedings.

The legal issues before the court encompassed several significant matters. Firstly, the court had to determine whether the statutory preconditions for bringing a claim for damages for sexual harassment and unlawful discrimination under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) were satisfied, particularly given that no complaint had been made to or terminated by the Australian Human Rights Commission. Secondly, the court needed to ascertain whether 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). Thirdly, the court examined whether the amendments to include claims for interim injunctions could "cure" the lack of jurisdiction. Finally, the court addressed whether Ms. Picos' allegations of bias against Justice Perry were substantiated.

The court ruled that the statutory preconditions for the claim were not met, as the process prescribed by the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) was deemed exclusive for remedying contraventions of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth). Consequently, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the claim for damages and dismissed the proceedings against the second to eighth respondents. The interlocutory applications filed by Ms. Picos were also dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Furthermore, the application for Justice Perry to disqualify herself was rejected, as the court found no basis for inferring bias. Finally, the court decided to afford both parties an opportunity to present submissions on the issue of costs, with specific limitations on the length and timing of these submissions.