Picos v Seven West Media Ltd [2015] FCA 660

Picos v Seven West Media Ltd [2015] FCA 660

The applicant had no reasonable prospect of succeeding against Seven West Media Ltd or Telstra Ltd. She did not allege, and the unanswered evidence disproved, that either moving respondent employed her or the alleged harassers. Her allegation that Seven West Media Ltd, Telstra Ltd and HealthEngine were partners in law was unsupported and misconceived, because the evidence showed only investment or strategic association, not a partnership carrying on business in common with a view of profit. The AHRC Act provides the exclusive remedial regime for contraventions of the SD Act, and the new allegations under s 105 were not the same, or the same in substance, as the terminated Commission...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Proceeding Alleging Sexual Harassment and Sex Discrimination Under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (cth) / Interlocutory Applications by the First and Second Respondents for Disjoinder Or, Alternatively, Summary Dismissal, Determined on the Papers
Outcome
Proceeding dismissed as against the first and second respondents with costs.
Legal Topics
['summary Dismissal' 'disjoinder' 'sexual Harassment in the Workplace' 'discrimination in Employment' 'partnership Liability' 'australian Human Rights Commission Complaint Procedure' 'vicarious Liability']
['human Rights' 'sex Discrimination' 'employment' 'civil Procedure'] ['summary Dismissal' 'disjoinder' 'sexual Harassment in the Workplace' 'discrimination in Employment' 'partnership Liability' 'australian Human Rights Commission Complaint Procedure' 'vicarious Liability']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Proceeding Alleging Sexual Harassment and Sex Discrimination Under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (cth) / Interlocutory Applications by the First and Second Respondents for Disjoinder Or, Alternatively, Summary Dismissal, Determined on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant had any reasonable prospect of succeeding against Seven West Media Ltd and Telstra Ltd under ss 14, 28B, 105, 106 or 107 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth).' 'Whether Seven West Media Ltd and Telstra Ltd could be liable on the basis that they were in partnership in law with HealthEngine Pty Ltd.' 'Whether the Court had jurisdiction to entertain allegations against Seven West Media Ltd and Telstra Ltd that were not the same, or the same in substance, as the terminated complaint before the Australian Human Rights Commission.' 'Whether the proceeding against Seven West Media Ltd and Telstra Ltd should be summarily dismissed under s 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) or r 26.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant had no reasonable prospect of succeeding against Seven West Media Ltd or Telstra Ltd. She did not allege, and the unanswered evidence disproved, that either moving respondent employed her or the alleged harassers. Her allegation that Seven West Media Ltd, Telstra Ltd and HealthEngine were partners in law was unsupported and misconceived, because the evidence showed only investment or strategic association, not a partnership carrying on business in common with a view of profit. The AHRC Act provides the exclusive remedial regime for contraventions of the SD Act, and the new allegations under s 105 were not the same, or the same in substance, as the terminated Commission...

Court Disposition

Proceeding dismissed as against the first and second respondents with costs.

Orders

  • ['Proceeding NSD 741 of 2014 is dismissed pursuant to section 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) as against the first and second respondents.' 'The applicant is to pay the costs of the first and second respondents as agreed or assessed.']