Eliezer v University of Sydney [2015] FCA 1045

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Eliezer v University of Sydney [2015] FCA 1045 Citation: Eliezer v University of Sydney [2015] FCA 1045

Parties: SUPRIYA ELIEZER v THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY, JAMES GUTHRIE, SHARRON O'NEILL, JOHN ROBERTS and SUE NEWBERRY

File number: NSD 1098 of 2014

Judge: PERRY J

Date of judgment: 21 September 2015

Catchwords: HUMAN RIGHTS – where interlocutory application seeks summary dismissal of application alleging sex and pregnancy discrimination in the course of employment, education and the provision of services – where no complaint made to, or terminated by, the Australian Human Rights Commission as against the second to fifth respondents – whether statutory preconditions for Court to entertain claim for damages for unlawful discrimination contrary to ss 14, 21 and 22 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) satisfied – whether amendments to include additional causes of action can "cure" lack of jurisdiction – where second to fifth respondents should not be required to await the possibility that applicant may plead presently unidentified causes of action – where proceedings as against second to fifth respondents dismissed PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where alleged unlawful conduct occurred more than six years before applicant lodged complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission – where summary dismissal sought on grounds of abuse of process – discussion of principles governing summary dismissal under s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – whether proceedings can constitute an abuse of process due to delay where not statute barred – where delay in making complaint and notifying respondents of alleged unlawful conduct without adequate explanation has caused prejudice to respondents in defending claims – where applicant made earlier workers compensation claim for the same psychological injury on different grounds – where inconsistency in the position adopted by the applicant as to the cause of her psychological injury has caused prejudice to respondents in defending claims PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where applicant seeks leave to amend originating application to include additional causes of action –where ample opportunity already provided for the applicant to amend – where proposed additional claims are based on same alleged conduct and would similarly constitute an abuse of process or lack jurisdiction PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where applicant sought to be assisted in Court by spouse under s 46PQ(1)(c) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) – where spouse did not meet statutory criteria due to status as an admitted practitioner – where applicant granted leave to make submissions through her spouse with assurance from spouse that he was cognisant of his ethical obligations as an admitted practitioner of the Supreme Court of New South Wales