Reurich v Campbell Page Ltd [2018] FCA 683

Reurich v Campbell Page Ltd [2018] FCA 683

The Court refused to extend time because the applicant, despite knowing the 60 day rule, did not give an acceptable explanation for a substantial delay, including an unexplained further delay after he was aware by July 2017 that his complaint had been terminated; the delay prejudiced Campbell Page Ltd by making relevant witnesses harder to contact or locate; and the amended originating application did not disclose an arguable disability discrimination case because it failed to identify the relevant disability, the breached provisions, or how the conduct after services ceased in September 2014 amounted to unlawful discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)....

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time Under S 46 Po(2) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (cth) to Make an Application Alleging Unlawful Discrimination / Hearing of Application for Extension of Time; Amended Originating Application Also Before the Court
Outcome
Application for extension of time dismissed; amended originating application dismissed; applicant ordered to pay the first and third respondents' costs of the extension application.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'disability Discrimination' 'australian Human Rights Commission Complaint Termination' 'prejudice Caused by Delay' 'arguable Case']
['practice and Procedure' 'human Rights' 'discrimination Law'] ['extension of Time' 'disability Discrimination' 'australian Human Rights Commission Complaint Termination' 'prejudice Caused by Delay' 'arguable Case']

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 Extension of Time Under S 46 Po(2) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (cth) to Make an Application Alleging Unlawful Discrimination / Hearing of Application for Extension of Time; Amended Originating Application Also Before the Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time under s 46PO(2) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth).' 'Whether the applicant provided an acceptable explanation for lodging the proceeding approximately eight months after the 60 day period expired.' 'Whether delay caused prejudice to Campbell Page Ltd and Ms Shea.' 'Whether the amended originating application disclosed an arguable case of unlawful discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth).' 'Whether allegations under the Age Discrimination Act 2004 (Cth) and the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) could be sustained following termination of a disability discrimination complaint.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused to extend time because the applicant, despite knowing the 60 day rule, did not give an acceptable explanation for a substantial delay, including an unexplained further delay after he was aware by July 2017 that his complaint had been terminated; the delay prejudiced Campbell Page Ltd by making relevant witnesses harder to contact or locate; and the amended originating application did not disclose an arguable disability discrimination case because it failed to identify the relevant disability, the breached provisions, or how the conduct after services ceased in September 2014 amounted to unlawful discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)....

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time dismissed; amended originating application dismissed; applicant ordered to pay the first and third respondents' costs of the extension application.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's application for an extension of time under s 46PO(2) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) (AHRC Act) be dismissed." 'The amended originating application under the AHRC Act be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the first and third respondents' costs of the application for an...