Rametta v Deakin University

Case [2010] FCA 1341

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Rametta v Deakin University [2010] FCA 1341

Citation: Rametta v Deakin University [2010] FCA 1341
Parties: SILVIA RAMETTA v DEAKIN UNIVERSITY
File number: VID 643 of 2010
Judge: MARSHALL J
Date of judgment: 2 December 2010
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE—Defamation claim—application for extension of time within which to bring proceedings— whether not reasonable in the circumstances for applicant to have commenced an action within the limitation period.
Legislation: Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic)
Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld)
Cases cited: Carey v ABC [2010] NSWSC 709
Goldman Sachs JBWere Services Pty Ltd v Nikolich (2007) 163 FCR 62
Murphy v Lewis [2009] QDC 37
Noonan v MacLennan [2010] QCA 50
Rayney v The State of Western Australia (No 3) [2010] WASC 83
Wookey v Quigley (No 2) [2010] WASC 209
Date of hearing: 2 December 2010
Place: Melbourne
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 53
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Martin Willoughby-Thomas
Solicitor for the Applicant: Mr Martin Willoughby-Thomas
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Chris O'Grady
Solicitor for the Respondent: DLA Phillips Fox

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 643 of 2010
BETWEEN:

SILVIA RAMETTA
Applicant
AND:

DEAKIN UNIVERSITY
Respondent

JUDGE:

MARSHALL J

DATE OF ORDER:

2 DECEMBER 2010

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The Applicant’s notice of motion is dismissed.

2.Costs reserved.

3.The Applicant file and serve an amended statement of claim by 22 December 2010 to reflect the result of the motion.

4.The directions hearing is adjourned to 9.30 am on 3 February 2011.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 643 of 2010
BETWEEN:

SILVIA RAMETTA
Applicant
AND:

DEAKIN UNIVERSITY
Respondent

JUDGE:

MARSHALL J

DATE:

2 DECEMBER 2010

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. On 3 August 2010, the applicant, Ms Silvia Rametta filed an application in the Fair Work Division of the Court.  The application sought the imposition of penalties on the respondent, Deakin University (“the University”), for breaches of various provisions of the Deakin University Enterprise Bargaining Agreement 2005-2008 (“the Agreement”).  Ms Rametta also sought declarations that those provisions had been breached as well as a declaration that officers of the University were accessorily liable for the breaches.  In the accrued jurisdiction of the Court damages were claimed for breach of contract and negligence.  The final paragraph of the application sought:

    An order that the Respondent pay the Applicant damages including aggravated damages, for defamation.

  2. In her application, Ms Rametta sought an interlocutory order as follows:

    …that the limitation period for defamation proceedings be extended to three years.

    The pleading

  3. Ms Rametta filed a statement of claim with her application.  Amongst other claims, the pleading alleges that Ms Rametta was employed in the position of Executive Officer, Human Research…

Continue reading Rametta v Deakin University

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Rametta v Deakin University [2010] FCA 1341
Case
[2010] FCA 1341
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rametta v Deakin University was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The dispute between the parties revolves around the application of the Limitation Act 1934 (WA) in the context of a defamation claim. The central issue is whether the plaintiff, Ms Rametta, could reasonably have commenced her action within the statutory limitation period of one year from the publication of the alleged defamatory material. The plaintiff argues that it was unreasonable for her to have commenced the action within this period due to specific circumstances, including her lack of access to the full complaint and her efforts to resolve the matter through mediation.

The court was tasked with determining whether the plaintiff's circumstances were such that it was unreasonable for her to commence her action within the statutory period. The plaintiff submitted that she was unaware of the full extent of the complaint until December 2007, and that efforts to mediate the dispute further delayed the commencement of her action. The court had to assess the reasonableness of the plaintiff's actions in light of the statutory provisions and previous case law concerning the application of limitation periods in similar contexts.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the statutory framework and previous judicial interpretations of similar provisions in other jurisdictions. The court determined that the plaintiff's efforts to resolve the matter internally and her limited access to the full complaint did not constitute sufficient grounds to find it unreasonable for her to have commenced her action within the statutory period. The court held that the statutory limitation period was not extended by the circumstances of this case, and that the plaintiff's claim was statute-barred.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's application, finding that it was not unreasonable for her to have commenced her action within the statutory period. The court found that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient grounds to justify an extension of the limitation period, and that her claim was therefore barred by statute.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Chief Justice Martin of the Supreme Court of Western Australia applied Noonan in Rayney v The State of Western Australia (No 3) [2010] WASC 83 at [41] and by Kenneth Martin J of the same Court in Wookey v Quigley (No 2) [2010] WASC 209, while each noted that there were differences between the Queensland and Victorian Acts and the counterpart Western Australian provisions.The evidence Has Ms Rametta demonstrated that it would have been unreasonable for her, in the particular circumstances of her case, to have commenced an action within the first year after the publication of the alleged defamatory material, that is by 31 October 2008? In support of her interlocutory application, Ms Rametta has filed an affidavit sworn on 28 September 2010. Ms Rametta says that the University did not supply her with “a true copy of the Smith complaint” until on or about 21 December 2007. Before then she says that she had only been provided by the University with an edited version of the first eight pages of the “Smith complaint”. Ms Rametta also states that by 21 December 2007, the “complaint” had been referred to an Inquiry Panel of the Harassment and Discrimination Complaints Procedure of the University. She also says that in January 2008, Dr Smith withdrew his complaint. In her affidavit, Ms Rametta says:Between October 2007 and November 2008, I was fighting for my position and my career as my duties and responsibilities were progressively stripped away from me and others were appointed to take over my functions.In that regard, Ms Rametta refers to a statement dated 10 June 2009, tendered in proceedings in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, which referred to what she was doing in the relevant period to assert her rights (“the AIRC statement”). In the AIRC statement, Ms Rametta refers to a letter dated 3 December 2007, from her solicitor. The letter refers to a meeting that day with a Ms Wilson of the University, “to respond to the allegations and discuss resolution”. The letter also refers to Ms Rametta being “committed to re-establishing relationships with the complainants” and “committed to the mediation process”. She says that the complainants refused to engage in mediation and “seemed intent on a hearing under the University’s internal individual complaint procedures”. The AIRC statement refers to Dr Smith withdrawing his complaint and to the other complainant persisting in taking her complaint to a hearing by an Inquiry Panel within the University’s procedures. The AIRC statement catalogues Ms Rametta’s alleged treatment by the University, including “censure, transfer and demotion”. The AIRC statement says that the inquiry panel reported in late February 2008, but that Ms Rametta did not receive a copy of the report apart from an incomplete version not containing recommendations, which she was able to access in July 2008. It also states that the inquiry panel reported its outcome to her on 7 March 2008.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.