McLaren, K. v Zucco, M. [1994] FCA 920

JUDGMENT No. sonar 22.9 2¥.,

CATCHWORDS

DISCRIMINATION LAW - Sexual Discrimination - enforcement of

registered determination of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission

Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) s81, 82A, 82B Federal Court Rules O 76 r 12

KATBLEEN MCLAREN v MARTI ZUCCO No TG 20 of 1994

NORTHROP J HOBART

7 NOVEMBER 1994

RECEIVED

-1 DEC 1994

COURT OF FEDERAL p

ate

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA TASMANIA DISTRICT REGISTRY No TG 20 of 1994 GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN:

KATHLEEN MCLAREN

Applicant AND: MARTI ZUCCO Respondent COURT: NORTHROP J PLACE: HOBART DATE: 7 NOVEMBER 1994

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an application brought by the applicant, Kathleen McLaren against the respondent, Marti Zucco, in the form of Form 5 to the Federal Court Rules. It is said to be an application under section 82B of the Sex Discrimination Act

1984 and as filed stated as follows:

"On the grounds appearing in the accompanying Affidavit the Applicant claims:

1. That within fourteen days the Respondent pay to the

Applicant the sum of $4,000.00 together with interest.

2. That the Respondent pay the costs of this application."

This is the first directions hearing in relation to that application. The respondent has filed an appearance and is

represented today by his solicitor. The parties have agreed

to orders being made as follows:

"1. That the Respondent pay to the Applicant the sum of $4,000.00 by 2ist December 1994.

2. That the Respondent pay to the Applicant interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum, such interest to accrue from the 3lst August 1994 and to be payable on the amount of the sum of $4000.00 outstanding

from time to time until the judgment debt is repaid."

At the directions hearing the Court raised a number of questions as to the nature of this application, the nature of the relevant provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act, and the need for the present application at all. In raising these matters the Court did not raise any questions as to the constitutional validity of the relevant provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act and proceeds on the basis that those