Matthews v Markos [2019] FCA 1827

Matthews v Markos [2019] FCA 1827

Leave to commence proceedings under s 46PO(3A)(a) is granted where the factual and legal basis of the applicant’s claims is reasonably arguable and delay is sufficiently explained; the bar for granting leave is not high, and delay as well as prejudice to the respondents do not outweigh the merits in this case. Consequently, leave is granted nunc pro tunc and the originating application is treated as filed with leave.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave Under Australian Human Rights Commission Act / Leave to Commence Proceedings (pre Trial)
Outcome
Leave granted nunc pro tunc to commence proceedings under s 46PO(1).
Legal Topics
['leave to Commence Proceedings' 'delay' 'discrimination on Basis of Sex and Family Responsibilities' 'federal Court Procedure' 'mediation' 'partnership Agreements']
['human Rights' 'employment Law' 'sex Discrimination'] ['leave to Commence Proceedings' 'delay' 'discrimination on Basis of Sex and Family Responsibilities' 'federal Court Procedure' 'mediation' 'partnership Agreements']

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

Application for Leave Under Australian Human Rights Commission Act / Leave to Commence Proceedings (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to commence proceedings under s 46PO(3A)(a) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) when complaint was terminated for being filed more than 12 months after alleged discrimination' 'Whether the application is reasonably arguable and not fanciful' 'Whether delay renders it inappropriate to grant leave']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to commence proceedings under s 46PO(3A)(a) is granted where the factual and legal basis of the applicant’s claims is reasonably arguable and delay is sufficiently explained; the bar for granting leave is not high, and delay as well as prejudice to the respondents do not outweigh the merits in this case. Consequently, leave is granted nunc pro tunc and the originating application is treated as filed with leave.

Court Disposition

Leave granted nunc pro tunc to commence proceedings under s 46PO(1).

Orders

  • ['Leave be granted to the applicant to make an application to this Court pursuant to s 46PO(1) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth).' 'The originating application filed on 4 April 2019 be treated as filed with leave of the Court pursuant to s 46PO(3A) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act...