Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Poppy v Service to Youth Council Incorporated (No 2) [2014] FCA 721 Citation: Poppy v Service to Youth Council Incorporated (No 2) [2014] FCA 721
Parties: SARAH JAYNE LOUISE POPPY v SERVICE TO YOUTH COUNCIL INCORPORATED
File number: SAD 65 of 2013
Judge: WHITE J
Date of judgment: 4 July 2014
Date of hearing: 25 June 2014
Place: Adelaide
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 28
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr A Manos
Solicitor for the Applicant: AM Legal
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr M Douglas
Solicitor for the Respondent: Minter Ellison
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION SAD 65 of 2013
BETWEEN: SARAH JAYNE LOUISE POPPY
Applicant
AND: SERVICE TO YOUTH COUNCIL INCORPORATED
Respondent
JUDGE: WHITE J DATE OF ORDER: 4 july 2014 WHERE MADE: ADELAIDE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The applications for costs be refused. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION SAD 65 of 2013
BETWEEN: SARAH JAYNE LOUISE POPPY
Applicant
AND: SERVICE TO YOUTH COUNCIL INCORPORATED
Respondent
JUDGE: WHITE J DATE: 4 july 2014 PLACE: ADELAIDE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 On 20 June 2014, I dismissed claims which the applicant brought against the respondent (SYC) under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (the SD Act) and upheld only one of three claims which she had brought under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the FW Act): Poppy v Service to Youth Council Incorporated [2014] FCA 656. 2 SYC has applied for costs orders in its favour, namely, 50% of the costs of the action; 100% of the costs of directions hearings held on 19 July and 6 November 2013; and 100% of the costs it incurred in relation to claims of sexual harassment which the applicant brought against Mr Edginton (its Chief Executive Officer) and Mr Furniss (its Chief Operating Officer), and which she had abandoned only shortly before the trial commenced. The applicant resists these applications. She indicated, however, that if her submissions with respect to the effect of s 570 of the FW Act failed, then she sought an order against SYC in respect of her claim under s 65 of the FW Act, on which she had succeeded. 3 The submissions concerning costs in this matter were made immediately after the submissions concerning the costs of Ms Stanley's claim against SYC, which are the subject of my reasons in Stanley v Service to Youth Council Incorporated (No 3) [2014] FCA 716 (Stanley (No 3)). These reasons should be read in conjunction with those reasons.
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