Saje v Union for Progressive Judaism Inc - [2019] FCCA 847

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SAJE v UNION FOR PROGRESSIVE JUDAISM INC & ORS

[2019] FCCA 847

Catchwords:

HUMAN RIGHTS – Application alleging unlawful sex discrimination and victimisation.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Production or provision of a document referred to in an affidavit.

WORDS AND PHRASES – “document” – “refers to”.

Legislation:

Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth), ss.46PH, 46PO
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), Dictionary – Pt.1
Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth), s.45
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), rr.1.05, 1.06, 13.03B, 14.10, 16.05, 41.02A
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), Sch.1

Cases cited:

Abrahams v Qantas Airways Ltd (No 2) [2007] FMCA 639; (2007) 210 FLR 314
ACN 007 528 207 Pty Ltd (in liq) v Bird Cameron [2002] SASC 144
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Australialink Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 265; (2009) 177 FCR 35
Beneficial Finance Corp Ltd v Price Waterhouse (1996) 68 SASR 19; (1996) 189 LSJS 364
Betfair Pty Ltd v Racing New South Wales (No 2) [2009] FCA 195
Century Drilling Ltd v Gerling Australia Insurance Co Pty Ltd [2004] QSC 120; [2004] 2 Qd R 481; (2004) 13 ANZ Insurance Cases 61-608
Charles v Fuji Xerox Australia Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1531; (2000) 105 FCR 573; (2000) 105 IR 153
Collins v Repatriation Commission (1980) 48 FLR 198; (1980) 32 ALR 581
Dubai Bank Ltd v Galadari (No 2) [1990] 1 WLR 731
Dye v Commonwealth Securities Ltd (No 2) [2010] FCAFC 118; (2010) 63 AILR 101-302
Faulkner v Tidewater Marine Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) [2016] FCCA 2918
Gray v Associated Book Publishers (Aust) Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 1045
Hartnett Legal Services Pty Ltd v Ballantyne [2016] FCA 1116
King v GIO Australia Holdings Ltd [2001] FCA 1487
Oldham v Capgemini Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] FCA 1101

Oldham v Capgemini Australia Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 1149; (2015) 241 FCR 397

Oztech Pty Ltd v Public Trustee of Queensland(No 10) [2016] FCA 970

Reynolds v JP Morgan Administrative Services Australia Ltd & Anor (No 2) [2011] FCA 489; (2011) 193 FCR 507; (2011) 280 ALR 612
Selth v Australasian Barrister Chambers Pty Limited (No 2) [2016] FCA 46
Smith v Harris (1883) 48 LT 869
Sunland Waterfront (BVI) Ltd v Prudentia Investments Pty Ltd (No 4) [2010] FCA 863
The Victorian Chamber of Manufactures & Ors v The Commonwealth & Ors (1943) 67 CLR 335; [1943] ALR 287; (1943) 17 ALJ 188

Applicant:

LEENA SAJE

First Respondent:

UNION FOR PROGRESSIVE JUDAISM INC

Second Respondent:

JOEL MENDELSON

Third Respondent:

STEPHEN FREEMAN

Fourth Respondent:

JOCELYN ROBUCK

Fifth Respondent:

STEVE DENENBERG

Sixth Respondent:

ROGER MENDELSON

File Number:

PEG 715 of 2017

Judgment of:

Judge Antoni Lucev

Hearing date:

12 March 2018

Date of Last Submission:

12 March 2018

Delivered at:

Perth

Delivered on:

2 May 2019

REPRESENTATION

For the Applicant:

In person

Counsel for the Respondents:

Mr R Humphreys and Mr V Atchamah

Solicitors for the Respondents:

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 Saje v Union for Progressive Judaism Inc 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: [2019] FCCA 847
Decision Date: 2 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Saje, brought proceedings against the respondent, the Union for Progressive Judaism Inc, alleging unlawful sex discrimination and victimisation. The matter came before Judge Antoni Lucev in the Magistrates Court of Western Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the respondent had failed to provide a document that was referred to in an affidavit filed by the respondent. This issue was central to the applicant's claim that the respondent had engaged in unlawful conduct.

Judge Lucev considered the meaning of the terms "document" and "refers to" in the context of the relevant legislation. His Honour found that the respondent had indeed referred to a document in its affidavit, and that the failure to produce this document constituted a breach of the applicant's rights. The Court applied principles of statutory interpretation to determine the scope of the respondent's disclosure obligations.

The Court ordered that the respondent provide the document to the applicant.

Orders