Vivienne Louise Dye v Commonwealth Securities Limited & Ors Vivienne Louise Dye v Commonwealth Bank of Australia Limited

[2013] HCASL 93

VIVIENNE LOUISE DYE

v

COMMONWEALTH SECURITIES LIMITED & ORS

VIVIENNE LOUISE DYE

v

COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA LIMITED & ANOR

[2013] HCASL 93
S246/2012
S247/2012

1. The applicant brought two separate proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia against the respondents.  The proceedings concerned allegations of sexual discrimination and sexual harassment by officers of the respondents.  On 16 March 2012, the Federal Court of Australia (Buchanan J) dismissed the applicant's proceedings.  Buchanan J made strong adverse credibility findings against the applicant.

2. The applicant appealed from the decision of Buchanan J. On 27 April 2012, the respondents filed interlocutory applications in which security was sought from the applicant for the respondents' costs of appeal. On 14 August 2012, the Federal Court of Australia (Emmett J) ordered, under s 56 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), that the applicant provide security in the sum of $200,000 within 30 days. Emmett J ordered that, if that security were not provided, then the applicant's appeals should be dismissed.

3. Before making the order, Emmett J considered the applicant's grounds of appeal and formed the view that the applicant did not enjoy strong prospects of success in her appeal.  Emmett J noted that the respondents had incurred substantial costs resisting claims that had been overwhelmingly rejected by the trial judge.  If the appeal were to proceed and fail, the respondents would have been obliged to incur substantial costs that would not be recoverable.

4. The applicant now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court from the decision of Emmett J.  The applicant's draft notice of appeal and summary of argument do not identify any error in the decision of Emmett J.  In large part the applicant's arguments challenge the factual findings made by Buchanan J at first instance; they are of little relevance to these applications.  Special leave should be refused.

5. Pursuant to r 41.11.1 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the applications with costs.

S.M. Kiefel
5 June 2013 P.A. Keane