Picos v Servcorp Limited [2015] FCA 344

Picos v Servcorp Limited [2015] FCA 344

The Federal Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain claims under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) against the second to eighth respondents, as the statutory precondition requiring complaint to and termination by the AHRC has not been satisfied regarding those respondents. Amendments to include claims for interlocutory relief cannot cure this jurisdictional defect. The application for disqualification of the judge lacks merit as apprehended or actual bias was not established. Claims against the eighth respondent are additionally barred by judicial immunity.

Parties
Applicant: Connie Louise Picos; First Respondent: Servcorp Limited; Second Respondent: Melvernic Pty Ltd; Third Respondent: Enideb Pty Limited; Fourth Respondent: HWL Ebsworth Lawyers; Fifth Respondent: Snedden, Hall & Gallop; Sixth Respondent: Emily Shoemark; Seventh Respondent: Dennis Martin; Eighth Respondent: Magistrate Bernadette Boss; Intervener: Attorney-General of the Australian Capital Territory
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Application for Summary Dismissal and Interlocutory Applications in Anti Discrimination Proceedings / Judgment on Interlocutory Applications and Jurisdictional Challenge
Outcome
Proceedings as against the second to eighth respondents (inclusive) are dismissed for want of jurisdiction; applications for disqualification and to file further evidence in support of disqualification are dismissed.
Legal Topics
Sexual Harassment, Federal Jurisdiction, Judicial Bias, Judicial Immunity, Jurisdictional Preconditions, Summary Dismissal, Exclusive Statutory Scheme
Human Rights Discrimination Law Civil Procedure Sexual Harassment Federal Jurisdiction Judicial Bias Judicial Immunity Jurisdictional Preconditions +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 38 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Connie Louise Picos

Applicant

Servcorp Limited

First Respondent

Melvernic Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Enideb Pty Limited

Third Respondent

HWL Ebsworth Lawyers

Fourth Respondent

Snedden, Hall & Gallop

Fifth Respondent

Emily Shoemark

Sixth Respondent

Dennis Martin

Seventh Respondent

Magistrate Bernadette Boss

Eighth Respondent

Attorney-General of the Australian Capital Territory

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Application for Summary Dismissal and Interlocutory Applications in Anti Discrimination Proceedings / Judgment on Interlocutory Applications and Jurisdictional Challenge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear claims against second to eighth respondents absent a terminated complaint by the AHRC against those respondents
  2. 2 Whether the statutory preconditions under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) for instituting court proceedings are satisfied as to the second to eighth respondents
  3. 3 Whether the application for the judge's disqualification for alleged bias should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The Federal Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain claims under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) against the second to eighth respondents, as the statutory precondition requiring complaint to and termination by the AHRC has not been satisfied regarding those respondents. Amendments to include claims for interlocutory relief cannot cure this jurisdictional defect. The application for disqualification of the judge lacks merit as apprehended or actual bias was not established. Claims against the eighth respondent are additionally barred by judicial immunity.

Court Disposition

Proceedings as against the second to eighth respondents (inclusive) are dismissed for want of jurisdiction; applications for disqualification and to file further evidence in support of disqualification are dismissed.

Orders

  • The interlocutory application for leave to lead further evidence on the disqualification application is dismissed.
  • The interlocutory application that Perry J be disqualified is dismissed.