Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Picos v Servcorp Limited [2015] FCA 344 Citation: Picos v Servcorp Limited [2015] FCA 344
Parties: CONNIE LOUISE PICOS v SERVCORP LIMITED, MELVERNIC PTY LTD, ENIDEB PTY LIMITED, HWL EBSWORTH LAWYERS, SNEDDEN, HALL & GALLOP, EMILY SHOEMARK, DENNIS MARTIN and MAGISTRATE BERNADETTE BOSS
File number: NSD 1179 of 2014
Judge: PERRY J
Date of judgment: 15 April 2015
Catchwords: HUMAN RIGHTS – where applications for summary dismissal of claim as against second to eighth respondents –where no complaint made to, or terminated by, the Australian Human Rights Commission as against the second to eighth respondents - whether statutory preconditions for the Court to entertain claim for damages for sexual harassment and unlawful discrimination contrary to ss 28G and 28H of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) satisfied – where liability of certain respondents alleged in reliance on s 105 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) by reason of those respondents aiding unlawful act - where process prescribed by the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) is an exclusive regime for remedying contraventions of (relevantly) the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) – whether amendments to include claims for interim injunction under s 46PP can "cure" the lack of jurisdiction – where proceedings dismissed for lack of jurisdiction PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where damages sought against judicial officer - where judicial immunity from suit under s 17I, Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where application for primary judge to disqualify herself for alleged bias or apprehended bias based on conduct of directions hearing in other proceedings - where allegation of prejudgment – where judge acted for intervener in unrelated proceedings before judicial appointment – where application is made for leave to lead evidence on the disqualification application – where caution is required before acceding to an application to lead evidence on a disqualification application - where application for filing further evidence refused – where disqualification refused on the basis that a fair-minded lay observer would not apprehend bias and no basis for inferring bias
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