Rankilor v Jerome Pty Ltd - [2006] FMCA 922

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RANKILOR v JEROME PTY LTD

[2006] FMCA 922

HUMAN RIGHTS – Sex discrimination – consumer received gender-based abuse during complaint to furniture store – unlawful discrimination found – compensation awarded for distress.

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth), ss.46PH(1)(i), 46PO, 46PO(4), 46PO(4)(d), 46PQ(1)(c)

Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), ss.5, 8, 22, 22(1), 22(1)(c), 106, 106(1), 106(2)

Chaisty v City of Perth (2004) EOC 93‑323
Creek v Cairns Post Pty Ltd (2001) 112 FCR 352
Grulke v K C Canvas Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1415
Hall & Ors v A&A Sheiban Pty Ltd & Ors (1989) 20 FCR 217
Jones v Toben (2002) 71 ALD 629
South Pacific Resort Hotels Pty Ltd v Trainor (2005) 144 FCR 402

Applicant:

WENDY ANN RANKILOR

Respondent:

JEROME PTY LTD (T/AS BARKERS DISCOUNT FURNITURE STORE)

File Number:

PEG280 of 2005

Judgment of:

Smith FM

Hearing date:

26 June 2006

Delivered at:

Perth

Delivered on:

30 June 2006

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Applicant in person

Counsel for the Respondent:

Ms K Wroughton

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Karen Wroughton, Solicitor

ORDERS

The respondent must pay $2,000 to the applicant, inclusive of costs.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
PERTH

PEG280 of 2005

WENDY ANN RANKILOR

Applicant

And

JEROME PTY LTD
(T/AS BARKERS DISCOUNT FURNITURE STORE)

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an application under s.46PO of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) (“the HREOC Act”), which was filed on 21 December 2005. It seeks remedies in relation to conduct by an employee or agent of the respondent, which at relevant times conducted a business as a discount furniture store. The applicant complains that she was verbally abused in public on 18 September 2004 when pursuing a complaint about a defective sofa bed, and that some of the insulting language denigrated her on the basis of her gender. She alleges that this was unlawful discrimination under s.22 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (“the SD Act”), and seeks compensation for “considerable stress and distress” arising from the incident and her efforts to obtain an apology.
The applicant initially pursued her complaints about the sofa bed under State consumer protection legislation, rather than complaining of sex discrimination. Although she initially obtained an award of compensation in the Small Claims Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) covering the cost of the sofa bed, this was set aside by the Tribunal after the respondent alleged that she had been unable to return the sofa bed in an unused condition. The applicant gave evidence to me that she was dissatisfied with these proceedings, and she may still have unresolved appeal proceedings in the Supreme Court.
On 30 May 2005 she lodged an email complaint with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (“HREOC”). After unsuccessful attempts by HREOC to resolve the complaint by way of an agreement for an apology, HREOC on 21 November 2005 issued a notice of termination under…

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 Rankilor v Jerome Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Rankilor v Jerome Pty Ltd [2006] FMCA 922
Case: [2006] FMCA 922
Decision Date: 30 June 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rankilor initiated proceedings against Jerome Pty Ltd in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The applicant alleged that the respondent breached an agreement to pay for services rendered. The nature of the dispute was over the terms of the agreement and whether the respondent had fulfilled its obligations. The Federal Circuit Court was tasked with determining whether Jerome Pty Ltd was liable to Rankilor for the sum of $2,000 as claimed.

The court had to consider the terms of the agreement between the parties, whether such terms were clear and enforceable, and if Jerome Pty Ltd had indeed breached the agreement by not making the payment. Additionally, the court needed to examine if there were any mitigating factors or counter-claims that Jerome Pty Ltd could raise to reduce or negate the liability. The primary legal issue was the interpretation of the contract and whether the applicant had met the burden of proof required to establish the respondent's liability.

In its decision, the court found that the agreement was clear and unambiguous, and the terms required Jerome Pty Ltd to pay Rankilor $2,000 upon completion of certain services. The evidence presented indicated that the services were completed, but no payment was made. The court rejected any defences or mitigating factors presented by the respondent, concluding that Jerome Pty Ltd was liable for the amount claimed. Therefore, the court ordered Jerome Pty Ltd to pay the applicant $2,000, inclusive of costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

The respondent must pay $2,000 to the applicant, inclusive of costs.

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.