Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Kennedy v ADI Ltd [2002] FCA 1603 PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – refusal of application for extension to time to appeal - no reason for delay - appeal doomed to fail. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) s 46PO
Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth)
Federal Court Rules O52 r 15
Kennedy v ADI Ltd [2001] FCA 614, referred to
Jess v Scott (1986) 12 FCR 187, applied
Haining v Drake (1998) 87 FCR 248, applied
Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen (1984) 3 FCR 344, followed
WAAD v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 399, applied
HPM Pty Ltd v Fear [2002] FCAFC 403, applied
Bartlem Pty Ltd v Cox Industries (Australia) Pty Ltd [2002] FCAFC 224, applied
Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission (2000) 203 CLR 194; [2000] HCA 47
DOROTHY KENNEDY v ADI LIMITED V 735 OF 2002 MARSHALL J MELBOURNE 19 DECEMBER 2002
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V735 OF 2002
BETWEEN: DOROTHY KENNEDY
APPLICANT
AND: ADI LIMITED
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: MARSHALL J
DATE OF ORDER: 19 DECEMBER 2002
WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V735 OF 2002
BETWEEN: DOROTHY KENNEDY
APPLICANT
AND: ADI LIMITED
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: MARSHALL J
DATE: 19 DECEMBER 2002
PLACE: MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 On 25 May 2001, Ryan J ("the primary judge") dismissed an application made by the applicant, Ms Kennedy; see Kennedy v ADI Ltd [2001] FCA 614. Ms Kennedy's application was made pursuant to s 46PO of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth). She alleged that the respondent, ADI Limited ("ADI") had engaged in acts of discrimination against her which contravened the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth). 2 The primary judge concluded that Ms Kennedy had not discharged her onus of proving unlawful sexual harassment of her by an employee or agent of ADI. 3 In the proceeding at first instance, Ms Kennedy filed an affidavit sworn on 1 December 2000. That affidavit constituted the bulk of her evidence in chief in the proceeding. Ms Kennedy was cross-examined that affidavit and generally, by counsel for ADI, Mr Staindl. 4 Order 52 r 15(1) of the rules of Court provides that a notice of appeal from a judgment of single judge must be filed and served within 21 days after the date when the judgment appealed from was pronounced. For current purposes, the relevant date was 15 June 2001. 5 Order 52 r 15(2) provides that: "Notwithstanding anything in the preceding sub-rule, the Court or a Judge for special reasons may at any time give leave to file and serve a notice of appeal."
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate