Speirs v Darling Range Brewing Co Pty Ltd - [2002] FMCA 126

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SPEIRS v DARLING RANGE BREWING CO PTY LTD & ORS

[2002] FMCA 126

HUMAN RIGHTS – Whether Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has power to issue second termination notice naming different respondents – duty to permit respondents to participate in conciliation process – whether HREOC has power to amend termination notice – power of HREOC to revoke termination notice- whether termination notice valid and/or a nullity – whether appropriate to summarily dismiss application where notice of termination invalid.

Charles v Fuji Xerox Australia Pty Ltd (2000) FCA 1531 (30 October 2000)

Sex Discrimination Act 1984
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 s.46P, 46PA, 46PD, 46PE, 46PF, 46PH, 46PO

Applicant:

CHERYL SPEIRS

Respondents:

WALTER LENZ (DISCONTINUED), DARLING RANGE BREWING CO PTY LTD, ANTONIO PISCICELLI (DISCONTINUED), NEVILLE HENDERSON, KIRRIE MARIE HALL AND TONY KITTLE

File No:

WZ113 of 2001

Delivered on:

26 June 2002

Delivered at:

Melbourne (by videolink to Perth)

Hearing Date:

31 May 2002

Judgment of:

McInnis FM

REPRESENTATION

Solicitor for the Applicant:

Mrs J Stevens

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Marks & Sands

Solicitor for the Second Respondent:

Mr N Billington

Solicitors for the Second Respondent:

Cahill Billington

Solicitor for the Fourth Respondent:

Mr J Bochat

Solicitors for the Fourth Respondent:

Rattigan Kearney & Bochat

Solicitor for the Fifth and Sixth Respondents:

Mr S Kemp

ORDERS

The Application against the Fifth and Sixth Respondents is dismissed.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
PERTH

WZ113 of 2001

CHERYL ANNE SPEIRS

Applicant

And

WALTER LENZ (DISCONTINUED), DARLING RANGE BREWING CO PTY LTD, ANTONIO PISCICELLI (DISCONTINUED), NEVILLE HENDERSON, KIRRIE MARIE HALL AND TONY KITTLE

Respondents

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The Fifth and Sixth Respondents seek an order that the Application against them should be summarily dismissed on the ground that a termination notice issued by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission is invalid and/or is a nullity. In considering the application for summary dismissal of the claim by the Applicant against the Fifth and Sixth Respondents it is appropriate to set out the background to the application together with an analysis of the submissions in the context of the relevant legislative framework.
The Applicant in this matter has made application to the Court alleging unlawful discrimination which it is claimed arises from a breach of certain provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (the SDA).
The Applicant had initially filed an Application in the Federal Court of Australia on 6 September 2001. A schedule to that application referred to the Respondents as being “Walter Lenz, Darling Range Brewing Co Pty Ltd, Antonio Piscicelli and Neville Henderson”.
In her Affidavit in support filed 6 September 2001 the Applicant referred to an annexure marked “C” being a copy of a statement made to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC). That statement is undated but it appears to be common ground that it effectively formed the basis of the complaint to HREOC pursuant to

s 46 P of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act

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 Speirs v Darling Range Brewing Co Pty Ltd 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: [2002] FMCA 126
Decision Date: 26 June 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Speirs v Darling Range Brewing Co Pty Ltd involved the applicant, Speirs, who sought to enforce an alleged contract with the First Respondent, the Darling Range Brewing Co Pty Ltd. The dispute arose over the enforceability of a contract which the applicant claimed was breached by the company. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The court had to determine whether the contract between the parties was legally binding and, if so, whether the company breached it.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the contract was valid and enforceable, and if the company breached it. The applicant argued that a contract existed and was breached, while the company denied the existence of the contract or any breach. The court had to evaluate the evidence presented regarding the formation and terms of the contract, as well as any actions taken by the company that might constitute a breach.

The court, after examining the evidence and the arguments presented by both parties, found that there was insufficient evidence to support the existence of a legally binding contract between the applicant and the company. Consequently, the court ruled that the applicant's claim for breach of contract could not be upheld. The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the alleged contract was valid and enforceable. As a result, the application against the Fifth and Sixth Respondents was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Application against the Fifth and Sixth Respondents is dismissed.

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.