Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Romero v Farstad Shipping (Indian Pacific) Pty Ltd (No 3) [2016] FCA 1453 File number: TAD 72 of 2012
Judge: TRACEY J
Date of judgment: 8 December 2016
Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – claims arising out of employment of Applicant as second officer on board Respondent's supply ship, in 2011 – claims under Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) and for breach of contract – claims dismissed in 2014 – appeal against dismissal of contract claim allowed – held that Respondent had breached contract by failing to comply with Workplace Harassment and Discrimination Policy – question of repudiation and associated questions such as affirmation and election, and question of damages, remitted – extent of damages for breaches – nominal damages appropriate – whether Respondent's conduct repudiatory – conduct not repudiatory – consideration whether, had Respondent's conduct been repudiatory, Applicant's conduct would have constituted affirmation – Applicant's conduct would have constituted affirmation
Legislation: Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 (Cth) Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), s 14(2)
Cases cited: Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd (1987) 9 NSWLR 310 Byrnes v Jokona Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 41 Carter v The Dennis Family Corporation [2010] VSC 406 Champtaloup v Thomas [1976] 2 NSWLR 264 European Bank Limited v Evans (2010) 240 CLR 432 Galafassi v Kelly (2014) 87 NSWLR 119 Haines v Bendall (1991) 172 CLR 60 Immer (No 145) Pty Limited v The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) (1993) 182 CLR 26 Khoury v Government Insurance Office of New South Wales (1984) 165 CLR 622 Koompahtoo Local Aboriginal Land Council v Sanpine Pty Ltd (2007) 233 CLR 115 McDonald v Parnell Laboratories (Aust) Pty Ltd (2007) 168 IR 375 Nikolich v Goldman Sachs JB Were Services Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 784 O'Connor v S. P. Bray, Limited (1936) 36 SR (NSW) 248 Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Exch 850 Romero v Farstad Shipping (Indian Pacific) Pty Ltd (2014) 231 FCR 403 Romero v Farstad Shipping (Indian Pacific) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] FCAFC 26 Romero v Farstad Shipping (Indian Pacific) Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 439 Sargent v ASL Developments Limited (1974) 131 CLR 634 Tabcorp Holdings Limited v Bowen Investments Pty Ltd (2009) 236 CLR 272 TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd v Hayden (1989) 16 NSWLR 130 Toll (FGCT) Pty Limited v Alphapharm Pty Limited (2004) 219 CLR 165 Tramways Advertising Pty Ltd v Luna Park (NSW) Limited (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 632 TWU v K& S Lake City Freighters Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1225 Van Efferen v CMA Corporation Ltd (2009) 183 IR 319 Westpac Banking Corporation v Wittenberg (2016) 256 IR 181
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