Wilson v Britten-Jones (No 2) [2020] FCA 1290

Wilson v Britten-Jones (No 2) [2020] FCA 1290

The applicant failed to establish that either her claim of sex discrimination or victimisation is reasonably arguable. No proper comparator or evidentiary substratum linked her sex or any asserted protected act with the treatment received; the pleadings are defective, include new allegations not raised before the AHRC, and the material relied upon does not support an inference of discrimination or victimisation. Leave to commence proceedings is therefore refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Commence Proceedings / Judgment on Application for Leave to Commence Proceedings Under S 46 Po(3 A) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act
Outcome
Leave to make an application pursuant to s 46PO(1) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1984 (Cth) refused.
Legal Topics
['sex Discrimination' 'victimisation' 'application for Leave Under AHRC Act' 'direct Discrimination' 'federal Court Procedure']
['human Rights' 'anti Discrimination Law' 'administrative Law'] ['sex Discrimination' 'victimisation' 'application for Leave Under AHRC Act' 'direct Discrimination' 'federal Court Procedure']

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 to Commence Proceedings / Judgment on Application for Leave to Commence Proceedings Under S 46 Po(3 A) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant's claims of sex discrimination and victimisation are reasonably arguable such that leave should be granted under s 46PO(3A) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth)" 'Whether alleged detriments suffered by applicant were because of her sex' 'Whether applicant was victimised for asserting rights under discrimination law']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish that either her claim of sex discrimination or victimisation is reasonably arguable. No proper comparator or evidentiary substratum linked her sex or any asserted protected act with the treatment received; the pleadings are defective, include new allegations not raised before the AHRC, and the material relied upon does not support an inference of discrimination or victimisation. Leave to commence proceedings is therefore refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to make an application pursuant to s 46PO(1) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1984 (Cth) refused.

Orders

  • ['Leave to make an application pursuant to s 46PO(1) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1984 (Cth), be refused.']