Pitt v Onesteel Reinforcing - [2003] FMCA 609

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PITT v ONESTEEL REINFORCING & ANOR

[2003] FMCA 609

HUMAN RIGHTS – Sex discrimination – summary dismissal.

Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001

Ball v Morgan & Anor [2001] FMCA 127)
Corporate Affairs Commission v Solomon Court of Appeal, 1 November 1989 (unreported, Mahoney AP)
Herron v McGregor (1986) 6 NSWLR 246
MacKellar & Anor v Container Terminal Management Services Limited & Ors (1999) 165 ALR 409
Re Morton: ex parte Mitchell Products Pty Ltd [1996] 828 FCA 1

Applicant:

ANTHONY JAMES PITT

First Respondent:

ONESTEEL REINFORCING PTY LIMITED (ACN. 004 148 289)

Second Respondent:

CATALYST RECRUITMENT

File No:

MZ 753 of 2003

Delivered on:

7 November 2003

Delivered at:

Melbourne

Hearing Date:

7 November 2003

Judgment of:

Hartnett FM

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr T.P. Smurthwaite

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Michael J. Amad Pty

Counsel for the First Respondent:

Ms M.J. Ierodiaconou

Solicitors for the First Respondent:

Blake Dawson Waldron

ORDER

Leave be granted to the applicant to withdraw proceedings filed 15 July 2003 as against the second respondent.
The application filed 15 July 2003 as against the first respondent is dismissed.
The applicant pay the costs of the first respondent fixed in the sum of $4,305.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
MELBOURNE

MZ 753 of 2003

ANTHONY JAMES PITT

Applicant

and

ONESTEEL REINFORCING PTY LIMITED and CATALYST RECRUITMENT

Respondents

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The proceedings

The proceedings commenced by the filing of an application on 15 July 2003 wherein no final or interim orders were sought. Such application was within time. The applicant was then a litigant in person. The first respondent filed a response on 29 August 2003 seeking that the application be struck out and the applicant pay the first respondent’s costs. Filed in support of that application was an affidavit of Mr John Yeoh, Regional Manager of Onesteel Reinforcing Pty Limited.
When the matter first came before the Court on 10 September 2003 the applicant was represented. He was ordered to file an affidavit in the proceedings both in support of his application filed and in opposition to the application for summary dismissal. He was required to serve a copy of his application and affidavit upon the second respondent. The applicant has not complied with those orders. He failed to file an affidavit in support of his application within the time provided – that application being defective in any event. The applicant also failed to serve his application upon the second respondent.
Both the applicant and the first respondent were represented this day. The second respondent has never been served with a copy of the application or any material in the proceedings. The applicant now seeks to discontinue his application against the second respondent and I shall grant him leave to that effect. The discontinuance of the complaint as against the second respondent has not previously been communicated to the first respondent.
The applicant sought leave to file an affidavit this day and I granted such leave, the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Pitt v Onesteel Reinforcing 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2003] FMCA 609
Decision Date: 7 November 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Magistrates Court considered an application by Anthony James Pitt against Onesteel Reinforcing and Catalyst Recruitment. Pitt alleged sexual harassment by a former employee during his employment in 1995. The court was tasked with deciding whether the application disclosed a reasonable cause of action and whether it was appropriate to summarily dismiss the proceedings.

The court found that the application did not disclose a reasonable cause of action. The allegations were made in 1995, and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission had already dismissed Pitt's complaint twice. The applicant had not pursued the complaint for nearly five years, leading to significant issues with the availability of witnesses and the reliability of their recollections. The applicant's affidavit did not provide any justification for this unreasonable delay or address the potential prejudice to the respondents. The court noted that the general principles for summary dismissal should be invoked sparingly, but in this case, it was appropriate given the highly implausible nature of the claim and the lack of any reasonable cause of action.

The court granted Pitt leave to discontinue his proceedings against Catalyst Recruitment but dismissed the application against Onesteel Reinforcing. The court ordered that Pitt pay Onesteel Reinforcing's costs, which were fixed at $4,305.00. The decision to summarily dismiss the application was made in the interest of justice and procedural fairness to both parties. The court exercised its discretion under the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, considering the need to prevent the unnecessary expenditure of public and private resources.

Orders