Sivwright v St Ives Group Pty Ltd (No 2) [2023] FCA 1063

Sivwright v St Ives Group Pty Ltd (No 2) [2023] FCA 1063

The Court found the applicant’s claims against St Ives Group Pty Ltd and Michael Heath were reasonably arguable and not fanciful, the delay was partially explained by mental illness and prior attempts at resolution, and the respondents had due notice. Prejudice to the main respondents was diminished. The application for leave should be granted against those parties. The Court had no jurisdiction (or would decline in discretion) to grant leave against Ms De Ronchi, Mr Ross-Adams, and Ms Rowling, either due to lack of notice, prejudice, or because they were not respondents to the terminated complaint.

Parties
Applicant: Loretta Sivwright; First Respondent: St Ives Group Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Michael Heath; Third Respondent: Michelle De Ronchi; Fourth Respondent: Bruce Ross-Adams; Fifth Respondent: Tracy Rowling
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 September 2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Make Application Alleging Unlawful Discrimination / Interlocutory; Determination of Application for Leave Under S 46 Po(3 A) of AHRC Act
Outcome
Leave granted in part; application otherwise dismissed
Legal Topics
Unlawful Discrimination, Sex Discrimination, Disability Discrimination, Sexual Harassment, Victimisation, Leave to Apply Out of Time, Jurisdiction of the Federal Court, Delay and Prejudice, Vicarious Liability
Human Rights Administrative Law Employment Law Discrimination Law Unlawful Discrimination Sex Discrimination Disability Discrimination Sexual Harassment +5 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 3 Authorities cited 32 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Loretta Sivwright

Applicant

St Ives Group Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Michael Heath

Second Respondent

Michelle De Ronchi

Third Respondent

Bruce Ross-Adams

Fourth Respondent

Tracy Rowling

Fifth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Make Application Alleging Unlawful Discrimination / Interlocutory; Determination of Application for Leave Under S 46 Po(3 A) of AHRC Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claims of sex and disability discrimination, harassment and victimisation were reasonably arguable
  2. 2 Whether delay was explained
  3. 3 Whether prejudice was caused by delay

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found the applicant’s claims against St Ives Group Pty Ltd and Michael Heath were reasonably arguable and not fanciful, the delay was partially explained by mental illness and prior attempts at resolution, and the respondents had due notice. Prejudice to the main respondents was diminished. The application for leave should be granted against those parties. The Court had no jurisdiction (or would decline in discretion) to grant leave against Ms De Ronchi, Mr Ross-Adams, and Ms Rowling, either due to lack of notice, prejudice, or because they were not respondents to the terminated complaint.

Court Disposition

Leave granted in part; application otherwise dismissed

Orders

  • The applicant have leave to make an application alleging unlawful discrimination by the first and second respondents (St Ives Group Pty Ltd and Michael Heath).
  • The originating application as against the third, fourth and fifth respondents (Michelle De Ronchi, Bruce Ross-Adams, Tracy Rowling) be dismissed.