Rossi v Qantas Airways Limited (No 2) [2020] FCA 1080

Rossi v Qantas Airways Limited (No 2) [2020] FCA 1080

Leave to proceed against the second and third respondents is refused as Ms Rossi failed to demonstrate a reasonably arguable case of indirect discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth), with no evidence of requirements imposed on a cohort or others and significant delay causing prejudice and unfairness to respondents outweighing any merit. Claims against the first respondent are adjourned pending determination of the application to set aside the settlement deed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Commence Proceeding Alleging Unlawful Discrimination / Determination of Leave Application
Outcome
Leave to proceed refused for claims against second and third respondents; application against first respondent adjourned.
Legal Topics
['sex Discrimination' 'disability Discrimination' 'delay in Filing Complaints' 'leave to Proceed Under Australian Human Rights Commission Act']
['human Rights Law' 'discrimination Law'] ['sex Discrimination' 'disability Discrimination' 'delay in Filing Complaints' 'leave to Proceed Under Australian Human Rights Commission Act']

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 Proceeding Alleging Unlawful Discrimination / Determination of Leave Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant has a reasonably arguable case against the second and third respondents for discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)' 'Whether discretionary considerations warrant refusal of leave given delay and prejudice' 'Whether the applicant has an arguable case to set aside the settlement deed with Qantas on grounds of incapacity, duress or unconscionable conduct']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to proceed against the second and third respondents is refused as Ms Rossi failed to demonstrate a reasonably arguable case of indirect discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth), with no evidence of requirements imposed on a cohort or others and significant delay causing prejudice and unfairness to respondents outweighing any merit. Claims against the first respondent are adjourned pending determination of the application to set aside the settlement deed.

Court Disposition

Leave to proceed refused for claims against second and third respondents; application against first respondent adjourned.

Orders

  • ['Leave to make an application pursuant to s 46PO(1) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1984 (Cth) alleging unlawful discrimination by the second or third respondent be refused.' "The applicant pay the second and third respondents' costs of the application." 'The application for leave alleging unlawful...