Pitt v OneSteel Reinforcing Pty Limited

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Pitt v OneSteel Reinforcing Pty Limited [2008] FCA 923

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – summary dismissal – viable cause of action shown on material – whether proper to dismiss on ground that proceeding frivolous or vexatious – proceeding commenced within limitation period – whether abuse of process because of prejudicial delay in making complaint to Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) ss 46PH(1)(b), 46PH(1)(f), 46PO(1)
Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) s 28A
Federal Court Rules O 52 r 5(2)
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 r 13.10

Anthony James Pitt v OneSteel Reinforcing & Anor [2003] FMCA 609 cited
Newcastle City Council v Batistatos [2005] NSWCA 20 (2005) 43 MVR 381 followed

ANTHONY JAMES PITT v ONESTEEL REINFORCING PTY LIMITED

VID 259 OF 2008

GRAY J
3 JUNE 2008
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VID 259 OF 2008

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: ANTHONY JAMES PITT
Applicant

AND: ONESTEEL REINFORCING PTY LIMITED
Respondent

JUDGE:	GRAY J
DATE OF ORDER:	3 JUNE 2008
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The title to the proceeding be amended by substituting “OneSteel Reinforcing Pty Limited” for “B.H.P North Altona Melb” as the name of the respondent.

2.        The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.

3.        The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the proceeding.

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VID 259 OF 2008

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: ANTHONY JAMES PITT
Applicant

AND: ONESTEEL REINFORCING PTY LIMITED
Respondent

JUDGE:	GRAY J
DATE:	3 JUNE 2008
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia, given on 7 November 2003.  The learned federal magistrate dismissed an application in reliance on the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (“the Sex Discrimination Act”) brought by the applicant. In doing so, her Honour relied on r 13.10 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (“the Federal Magistrates Court Rules”), under which the Federal Magistrates Court has the power to dismiss a proceeding because there is no reasonable cause of action, the proceeding is frivolous or vexatious, or the proceeding is an abuse of the process of the court. Her Honour dismissed the application on all three grounds.

2. Before coming to her Honour’s reasons, it is necessary to go to the history of the proceeding. In 1995, the applicant was engaged as a contractor by the respondent, which was then known as BHP Steel (RP) Pty Ltd. During the time that he was working for the respondent, the applicant made allegations that a fellow worker had harassed him sexually, by touching his genitals on several occasions. On 10 November 1995, after the applicant had ceased to work for the respondent, he lodged a complaint against…