Ahmad v MPA Engineering Pty Ltd (Subsidiary of Aquatec Maxcon Group Ltd) [2022] FCA 236

Ahmad v MPA Engineering Pty Ltd (Subsidiary of Aquatec Maxcon Group Ltd) [2022] FCA 236

The applicant did not articulate a comprehensible case of unlawful discrimination, with allegations not rising above bare assertion, and failed after four opportunities to plead material facts supporting a claim. It is not reasonably arguable on the merits or from an impressionistic perspective that the primary...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Waqqas Ahmad; Respondent: MPA Engineering Pty Ltd (Subsidiary of Aquatec Maxcon Group Ltd)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, Racial Discrimination, Australian Human Rights Commission Procedures
Administrative and Constitutional Law Human Rights Extension of Time Leave to Appeal Racial Discrimination Australian Human Rights Commission Procedures

Source-derived case record

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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Waqqas Ahmad

Applicant

MPA Engineering Pty Ltd (Subsidiary of Aquatec Maxcon Group Ltd)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an extension of time and leave to appeal should be granted from the Federal Circuit Court decision refusing leave to proceed under s 46PO(3A) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act
  2. 2 Whether the applicant articulated an arguable case of unlawful discrimination

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not articulate a comprehensible case of unlawful discrimination, with allegations not rising above bare assertion, and failed after four opportunities to plead material facts supporting a claim. It is not reasonably arguable on the merits or from an impressionistic perspective that the primary judge erred in refusing leave to proceed under s 46PO(3A).

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for an extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs as agreed or taxed.