Legal Research
Cases
Piper v Metanoia Kojo Pty Ltd

Piper v Metanoia Kojo Pty Ltd

Case [2005] FMCA 1051 22 December 2005

Jurisdiction

Costs

Stay of Proceedings

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PIPER v METANOIA KOJO PTY LTD

[2005] FMCA 1051

HUMAN RIGHTS – Allegation of sex discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy – failure to offer employment – maternity leave – whether the respondent in offering employment to their son and not the applicant who was due to leave to give birth amounts to direct discrimination – whether the applicant was told after the respondent purchased the new rent roll business that upon that purchase her employment would cease or had ceased – where the applicant’s employment ceased upon change of partnership – claim not proved.

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth), ss.46PO, 46PO(4), 46PR
Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), ss.4, 4B, 5, 5(1), 5(1)(a), 5(1)(b), 5(1)(c), 5(1A), 5(2), 5(3), 7, 7(1), 7B, 7C, 7D, 8, 14, 14(1), 14(1)(a), 14(1)(b), 14(1)(c), 31
United Nations Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women 1979
South Australian Industrial and Employee Relations Act 1994 (SA), s.72

Bear v Norwood Private Nursing Home (1984) EOC 92-019
Thomson v Orica (2002) EOC 93-227
Commonwealth v Humphries (1998) 86 FCR 324
Gibbs v Australian Wool Corporation (1990) EOC 92-327
Allegretta v Prime Holdings P/L t/a Phoenix Hotel and Anor (1991) EOC 92-364
Boehringer Ingelheim Pty Ltd v Reddrop [1984] 2 NSWLR 13
Commonwealth v HREOC (Dopking No 1) (1993) 46 FCR 191
Ministry of Defence v Jeremiah [1980] QB 87
Haines v Leves & Anor [1987] 8 NSWLR 442
HR&EO Commission v Mount Isa Mines Ltd (1993) 118 ALR 80
IW v City of Perth [1997] 191 CLR 1
Director-General of Education & Anor v Breen & Ors (1984) EOC 92-015
Bligh and Others v State of Queensland [1996] HREOCA 28
Jamal v Secretary, Department of Health (1988) 14 NSWLR 252
Australian Iron and Steel v Banovic (1989) 168 CLR 165
Waters & Ors v Public Transport Corporation (1992) 173 CLR 349
R v Birmingham City Council; Ex Parte Equal Opportunities Commission (1989) 2 WLR 550
Purvis v New South Wales Department of Education and Training (2003) 202 ALR 133
Bringingshaw v Bringingshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
McAllister v SEQ Aboriginal Corp for Legal Services & Anor [2002] FMCA 109
Beamish v Zheng [2004] FMCA 60
The Australian Public Service v The Australian Trade Commission (1988) EOC 92-228

Applicant:

KRISTINA MARIA PIPER

Respondent:

METANOIA KOJO PTY LTD (TRADING AS CHOICE RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT)

File Number:

ADG 168 of 2003

Judgment of:

Pascoe CFM

Hearing dates:

21 & 22 June and 24 November 2005

Delivered at:

Sydney (via telephone link to Adelaide)

Delivered on:

22 December 2005

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr S Blewett

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Lieschke & Weatherill

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr F Di Fazio

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Moloney & Partners

ORDERS

That the application is dismissed.
That the respondent within 45 days file any written submissions on the question of costs and within 14 days thereafter the applicant file any response.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY (via telephone…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Piper v Metanoia Kojo Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Piper v Metanoia Kojo Pty Ltd [2005] FMCA 1051
Case: [2005] FMCA 1051
Decision Date: 22 December 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved Piper, the applicant, and Metanoia Kojo Pty Ltd, the respondent, in a dispute concerning a breach of contract and associated damages. Piper sought relief from an order that had been made against them, arguing that the primary judge had erred in their findings and the relief granted. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The legal issues the court needed to address included whether the primary judge had correctly interpreted the contract, whether the evidence supported the findings of breach, and the appropriateness of the relief granted. Piper argued that the primary judge had erred in their interpretation of the contract terms and the application of the evidence. They contended that the relief granted was excessive and not supported by the evidence.

The court found that the primary judge's interpretation of the contract was consistent with the terms and the evidence provided. The court held that Piper had failed to demonstrate any errors in the primary judge's findings or the relief granted. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the court ordered that the respondent file written submissions on the question of costs within 45 days, with the applicant to respond within 14 days thereafter.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the application is dismissed.

That the respondent within 45 days file any written submissions on the question of costs and within 14 days thereafter the applicant file any response.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Piper v Metanoia Kojo Pty Ltd [2005] FMCA 1051

Cases citing this decision · 0 of 0 shown

No citing cases yet.

Cases cited in this decision · 12 of 12 shown

Italiano v Carbone
[2005] NSWCA 177 Para 8

…are the situation to that of another person or the hypothetical person ( Boehringer Ingelheim Pty Ltd v Reddrop (supra); Haines v Leves & Anor [1987] 8 NSWLR 442, at [471]).…
Beamish v Zheng
[2004] FMCA 60 Para 12

…60 CLR 336 at [362], per Dixon J; McAllister v SEQ Aboriginal Corp for Legal Services & Anor [2002] FMCA 109 at [39], per Rimmer FM; Beamish v Zheng [2004] FMCA 60 at [14], per Driver FM and s.7C of the Act) and that the applicant’s allegations are corroborated by sufficient evidence. Failing sufficient corrobor…
Purvis v New South Wales
[2003] HCA 62 Para 11

…authorities as to whether the terms " on the grounds of " and " because of " could be said to import the time honoured " but for " test. However, in Purvis v New South Wales Department of Education and Training (2003) 202 ALR 133, the High Court at [166] said that the weight of authority was now no longer to accept the " but for " test and that the inquiry should f…
Purvis v State of NSW (Dept Education & Training) & Anor
[2003] HCATrans 674 Para 11

…" because of " could be said to import the time honoured " but for " test. However, in Purvis v New South Wales Department of Education and Training (2003) 202 ALR 133, the High Court at [166] said that the weight of authority was now no longer to accept the " but for " test and that the inquiry should focus on the…
McAllister v SEQ Aboriginal Corp for Legal Services & Anor
[2002] FMCA 109 Para 12

…civil standard test ( Bringingshaw v Bringingshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 at [362], per Dixon J; McAllister v SEQ Aboriginal Corp for Legal Services & Anor [2002] FMCA 109 at [39], per Rimmer FM; Beamish v Zheng [2004] FMCA 60 at [14], per Driver FM and s.7C of the Act) and that the applicant’s allegations are corrobora…
Commonwealth v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
[1998] FCA 3 Para 8

…ual enquiry ( Commonwealth v Humphries (1998) 86 FCR 324 at [333], per Kiefel J). Wilcox J said at [210]-[211] in Commonwealth v HREOC (Dopking No 1) (1993) 46 FCR 191 that the applicant must show that the less favourable treatment complained of resulted in them suffering detriment (See also Ministry of Defence v Je…
IW v City of Perth
[1997] HCA 30 Para 9

…nection between the pregnancy and any less favourable treatment ( HR&EO Commission v Mount Isa Mines Ltd (1993) 118 ALR 80; IW v City of Perth [1997] 191 CLR 1; Director-General of Education & Anor v Breen & Ors (1984) EOC 92-015 at (75,429), per Street CJ). In other words for the applicant to succeed in her…
Waters v Public Transport Corporation
[1991] HCA 49 Para 10

…) 14 NSWLR 252, at [252], per Kirby P; Australian Iron and Steel v Banovic (1989) 168 CLR 165 at [179]; Waters & Ors v Public Transport Corporation (1992) 173 CLR 349, at [359], per Mason CJ and Gaudron J; R v Birmingham City Council; Ex Parte Equal Opportunities Commission (1989) 2 WLR 550 at [552], per Lord Goff).…
Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd v Banovic
[1989] HCA 56 Para 10

…ueensland [1996] HREOCA 28; Jamal v Secretary, Department of Health (1988) 14 NSWLR 252, at [252], per Kirby P; Australian Iron and Steel v Banovic (1989) 168 CLR 165 at [179]; Waters & Ors v Public Transport Corporation (1992) 173 CLR 349, at [359], per Mason CJ and Gaudron J; R v Birmingham City Council; Ex Parte E…
Briginshaw v Briginshaw
[1938] HCA 34 Para 12

…satisfied that the applicant has proved her claim of unlawful discrimination in accordance with the civil standard test ( Bringingshaw v Bringingshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 at [362], per Dixon J; McAllister v SEQ Aboriginal Corp for Legal Services & Anor [2002] FMCA 109 at [39], per Rimmer FM; Beamish v Zheng [2004] FMCA…
[1980] QB 87
[1980] QB 87 Para 8

…he applicant must show that the less favourable treatment complained of resulted in them suffering detriment (See also Ministry of Defence v Jeremiah [1980] QB 87). For the Court to find that the applicant has been treated less favourably it must compare the situation to that of another person or the hypothetic…
(1989) 2 WLR 550
(1989) 2 WLR 550 Para 10

…ransport Corporation (1992) 173 CLR 349, at [359], per Mason CJ and Gaudron J; R v Birmingham City Council; Ex Parte Equal Opportunities Commission (1989) 2 WLR 550 at [552], per Lord Goff). However, this does not exclude it as a material factor ( Mt Isa Mines (supra), at [102], per Lockhart J and affirmed by Alsop…

Legislation cited in this decision · 2

Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth)
4, 4B, 5, 5(1), 5(1)(a), 5(1)(b), 5(1)(c... 25 mentions (from Para 1)
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth)
46PO, 46PO(4), 46PR 3 mentions