Crvenkovic v La Trobe University [2009] FCA 374

Crvenkovic v La Trobe University [2009] FCA 374

Section 46PO(3) imposed a temporal limit on the applicant's Federal Court application, so alleged acts or omissions by the University after 28 February 2008 could not be relied on to establish unlawful disability discrimination in this proceeding. Charles v Fuji Xerox Australia Pty Ltd was not clearly wrong and was not distinguishable on the bases advanced by the applicant.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 46 Po(1) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (cth) Alleging Unlawful Disability Discrimination / Preliminary Issue Concerning Whether the Applicant Could Rely at Trial on Alleged Acts or Omissions After the Complaint to the Commission
Outcome
Direction made in favour of the respondent on the preliminary issue; applicant ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the preliminary issue.
Legal Topics
['disability Discrimination' 'human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Complaint' 'scope of Federal Court Application After Terminated Complaint' 'temporal Limits Under S 46 Po(3)' 'education Discrimination']
['discrimination Law'] ['disability Discrimination' 'human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Complaint' 'scope of Federal Court Application After Terminated Complaint' 'temporal Limits Under S 46 Po(3)' 'education Discrimination']

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 Under S 46 Po(1) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (cth) Alleging Unlawful Disability Discrimination / Preliminary Issue Concerning Whether the Applicant Could Rely at Trial on Alleged Acts or Omissions After the Complaint to the Commission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether s 46PO(3) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) prevents the applicant from relying in the Federal Court proceeding on alleged discriminatory acts or omissions that occurred after 28 February 2008, the date she lodged her complaint with the Commission.' 'Whether Charles v Fuji Xerox Australia Pty Ltd (2000) 105 FCR 573 should be followed or distinguished.']

Ratio Decidendi

Section 46PO(3) imposed a temporal limit on the applicant's Federal Court application, so alleged acts or omissions by the University after 28 February 2008 could not be relied on to establish unlawful disability discrimination in this proceeding. Charles v Fuji Xerox Australia Pty Ltd was not clearly wrong and was not distinguishable on the bases advanced by the applicant.

Court Disposition

Direction made in favour of the respondent on the preliminary issue; applicant ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the preliminary issue.

Orders

  • ['On the final hearing of the proceeding, the Applicant not be at liberty to lead any evidence directed to establishing any act or omission on the part of the Respondent after 28 February 2008 which is alleged to constitute unlawful disability discrimination.' "The Applicant pay the Respondent's costs of the...