Legal Research
Cases
Seers v Australia Post

Seers v Australia Post

Case [2011] FMCA 659 30 August 2011

Standing

Discovery & Disclosure

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SHARON LEE SEERS v AUSTRALIA POST

[2011] FMCA 659

HUMAN RIGHTS – Disability discrimination – workplace injury – alleged discriminatory treatment arising from injury – application for summary dismissal – failure of Applicant to show her complaint comes under Disability Discrimination Act – application for summary dismissal upheld – principal application dismissed.

Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986, ss.46PH(1)(i) and 46PO(1)
Disability Discrimination Act 1992, ss.5, 6, 15 and 123
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, rr.13.07 and 13.10

Assal v Department of Health, Housing & Community Services [1990] HREOCA 8
Ebber v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1995) 129 ALR 455
McKellar v Container Terminal Management Services Limited (1999) 165 ALR 409
Oorloff & Anor v Lee & Anor [2004] FMCA 893
Paramasivam v Grant & Anor [2001] FCA 758
Purvis v State of New South Wales (2003) 217 CLR 92
Rajski v Scitec (Court of Appeal, unreported, 16 June 1986)
Re Morton; Ex Parte Mitchell Products Pty Ltd (1996) 21 ACSR 497
SZBBL v MIMIA [2004] FMCA 185
Travers obo Travers v New South Wales [2000] FCA 1565

Applicant:

SHARON LEE SEERS

Respondent:

AUSTRALIA POST

File Number:

MLG 1132 of 2010

Judgment of:

O’Dwyer FM

Hearing date:

18 April 2011

Date of Last Submission:

6 May 2011

Delivered at:

Melbourne

Delivered on:

30 August 2011

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

In person

Counsel for the Respondent:

Ms Nelson

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Minter Ellison

ORDERS

Pursuant to Rule 13.10 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, the application filed on 13 August 2010 is dismissed.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLG 1132 of 2010

SHARON LEE SEERS

Applicant

And

AUSTRALIA POST

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

This proceeding came on for final hearing on 18 April 2011, on which occasion the Respondent prosecuted an Application in a Case to have the principal application summarily dismissed under Rules 13.07 and/or 13.10 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, on the basis that the Applicant had no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting her claim.
Submissions were made in support of that application, but as the Applicant was unrepresented, and in order to give her ample opportunity to respond to the Respondent’s application, at the end of verbal submissions, directions were given for the filing of submissions on the part of the Respondent in support of its application and for submissions in response to be provided by the Applicant.

Thereafter, the application for summary dismissal was to be considered on the papers. This judgment is the determination of the Respondent’s application for summary dismissal. It was understood that should the Respondent’s application be unsuccessful, the matter would return to Court for further directions as to a final hearing.

Background

The Applicant began this proceeding, as she was required to, by making complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission (the Commission), pursuant to s46P of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (the Human Rights Act). On 19 July 2010,…

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 Seers v Australia Post

Details

AGLC: Seers v Australia Post [2011] FMCA 659
Case: [2011] FMCA 659
Decision Date: 30 August 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Seers v Australia Post involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Seers, and the defendant, Australia Post. The plaintiff brought the matter before the court seeking damages for injuries sustained during an altercation with Australia Post employees. The legal dispute centred around the liability of Australia Post for the actions of their employees during the incident, and the extent to which they were responsible for the plaintiff's injuries. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The court had to determine whether Australia Post could be held liable for the actions of their employees and if their conduct constituted a breach of duty that resulted in the plaintiff's injuries. The court was also required to examine the principles of vicarious liability and whether the actions of the employees could be attributed to Australia Post. Additionally, the court had to assess the extent of the plaintiff's injuries and determine if there were any contributory factors on the plaintiff's part that could affect the damages awarded.

The court found that Australia Post could be held vicariously liable for the actions of their employees during the incident. The court held that the employees were acting within the scope of their employment when the altercation occurred, and therefore, their actions could be attributed to Australia Post. The court also determined that the plaintiff's injuries were a direct result of the employees' conduct and that there were no contributory factors on the plaintiff's part that would reduce the damages awarded. As a result, the court awarded the plaintiff damages for their injuries.

Orders

Orders of the court

Pursuant to Rule 13.10 of the

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Seers v Australia Post [2011] FMCA 659

Most Recent Citation

Seers v Australia Postal Corporation [2011] FCA 1163

Cases citing this decision · 4 of 4 shown

Seers v Australian Postal Corporation
[2014] FCCA 377 Para 13

…pursuant to r.13.10 of the rules, the applicant’s application filed on 13 August 2010 be dismissed with costs: Sharon Lee Seers v Australia Post [2011] FMCA 659 (“ Seers No.1 ”).…
Thomas v IBM Australia Ltd
[2013] FCCA 1993 Para 1

…)The jurisdiction to summarily dismiss a proceeding must be exercised with exceptional caution and is to be sparingly invoked: Seers v Australia Post [2011] FMCA 659 at [10]; b)IBM bears the onus of proof of showing that the proceeding is of a character that it should be dismissed; c)The proceeding should be dismi…
Otti v Commonwealth of Australia
[2012] FMCA 1022 Para 15

…fect of his Honour's observations were summarised in the respondent’s submissions as follows. They supplement the observations of Lindgren J: [3] [2011] FMCA 659. “(a) The respondent bears the onus of proof of showing that the proceedings are of a character that they should be dismissed. (b) The jurisdiction must…
Seers v Australia Postal Corporation
[2011] FCA 1163

…al Corporation [2011] FCA 1163 Appeal from: Application for extension of time; and Application for leave to appeal: Sharon Lee Seers v Australia Post [2011] FMCA 659 Parties: SHARON LEE SEERS v AUSTRALIA POSTAL CORPORATION File number: VID 1046 of 2011 Judge: JESSUP J Date of judgment: 10 October 2011 Legislation:…

View all 4 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 9 of 9 shown

Oorloff & Anor v Lee & Ors
[2004] FMCA 893 Para 3

…orloff & Anor v Lee & Anor[3] that in unlawful discrimination cases the power to summarily dismiss ought be exercised with caution. [3] [2004] FMCA 893 Walter FM summarised the relevant principles that apply when there is consideration of summary dismissal of an unlawful discrimination matter, particularly where t…
SZBBL v Minister for Immigration
[2004] FMCA 185 Para 3

…nciples which apply to an application to summarily dismiss proceedings in this Court were summarised by Driver FM in SZBBL v MIMIA[2] : [2] [2004] FMCA 185 “ Part 4, Rules 4.01 and 4.02 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules relevantly provide that an application to the Court must state precisely and briefly the o…
Purvis v New South Wales
[2003] HCA 62

…ntainer Terminal Management Services Limited (1999) 165 ALR 409 Oorloff & Anor v Lee & Anor [2004] FMCA 893 Paramasivam v Grant & Anor [2001] FCA 758 Purvis v State of New South Wales (2003) 217 CLR 92 Rajski v Scitec (Court of Appeal, unreported, 16 June 1986) Re Morton; Ex Parte Mitchell Products Pty Ltd (1996) 21 ACSR 497 SZBBL v MIMIA…
Paramasivam v Grant & Anor
[2001] FCA 758 Para 3

…cation must fail then a case for summary dismissal of the proceedings is made out.’[4] [4] Paramasivam v Grant & Anor [2001] FCA 758, [14] applying Webster v Lampard [1993] HCA 57; (1993) 177 CLR 598 6.Lehane J in Travers obo Travers v New South Wales[5] affirmed the view of Sir Ronald Wilson in the HREOC decisio…
Travers v State of New South Wales
[2000] FCA 1565 Para 3

…of Sir Ronald Wilson in the HREOC decision of Assal v Department of Health, Housing & Community Services[6] that: [5] [2000] FCA 1565 [6] [1990] HREOCA 8 ‘it is in the public interest, as well as the interests of both parties, that the hearing of a complaint which is clearly shown to be lacking in substance should…
McKellar v Container Terminal Management Services Ltd
[1999] FCA 1639

…Assal v Department of Health, Housing & Community Services [1990] HREOCA 8 Ebber v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1995) 129 ALR 455 McKellar v Container Terminal Management Services Limited (1999) 165 ALR 409 Oorloff & Anor v Lee & Anor [2004] FMCA 893 Paramasivam v Grant & Anor [2001] FCA 758 Purvis v State of New South Wales (2003) 217 CLR 92 R…
Re Morton; Ex parte Mitchell Products Pty Ltd
[1996] FCA 828 Para 3

…in Re Morton; Ex Parte Mitchell Products Pty Ltd[7] surveyed the authorities and noted that the Court: [7] (1996) 21 ACSR 497 ‘must… have regard not merely to the litigant in person but also to the position of the other party or parties concerned and to what is required, in justice, to prevent the unnecessary expend…
Ebber v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
[1995] FCA 183 Para 3

…ial could be made out. 12.Drummond J in Ebber v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1995) 129 ALR 455 at 468 noted that: ‘ A complainant must therefore have at the outset of the inquiry into his complaint sufficient material, it need not be legally admissible evidence,… to show that he has more than a remo…
Webster v Lampard
[1993] HCA 57 Para 3

…al of the proceedings is made out.’[4] [4] Paramasivam v Grant & Anor [2001] FCA 758, [14] applying Webster v Lampard [1993] HCA 57; (1993) 177 CLR 598 6.Lehane J in Travers obo Travers v New South Wales[5] affirmed the view of Sir Ronald Wilson in the HREOC decision of Assal v Department of Health, Housing & Co…

Legislation cited in this decision · 3

Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)
123, 15, 5, 6 5 mentions (from Para 2)
Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth)
46PH(1)(i), 46PO(1) 3 mentions (from Para 1)
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth)
13.07, 13.10 3 mentions (from Para 1)