Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Hazledine v Arthur J Gallagher Australia & Co (Aus) Limited [2017] FCA 575 File number: SAD 338 of 2016
Judge: WHITE J
Date of judgment: 25 May 2017
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for separate hearing on issue as to whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine a victimisation claim based on s 94 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) – prospect that there will not be a substantial saving in the Court's time and costs – the Court will likely hear the evidence relating to the victimisation claim in its consideration of the applicant's remaining claims. Held: application dismissed.
Legislation: Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) ss 3, 46PO, 49B Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) s 15(2) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 19(1) Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39B Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) ss 14(2), 94 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 30.01
Cases cited: Buchanan v TAL Life Ltd [2015] FCA 42 Chen v Birbilis [2016] FCA 661 Chen v Monash University [2015] FCA 130 Chen v Monash University [2016] FCAFC 66; (2016) 244 FCR 424 Dye v Commonwealth Securities Limited [2010] FCA 720 Dye v Commonwealth Securities Limited (No 2) [2010] FCAFC 118 Penhall-Jones v State of NSW [2007] FCA 925 Prescott Securities Limited v Gobbett (No 2) [2017] FCA 81 Walker v State of Victoria [2012] FCAFC 38 Winters v Fogarty [2017] FCA 51
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