Tickle v Giggle For Girls Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 553

Federal Court of Australia

Tickle v Giggle For Girls Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 553 File number: NSD 1148 of 2022

Judgment of: BROMWICH J

Date of judgment: 1 June 2023

Catchwords: HUMAN RIGHTS – gender discrimination – where the applicant alleges unlawful discrimination in breach of s 22 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (SD Act) on the basis of gender identity within the meaning of s 5B of the SD Act – where the complaint was terminated under s 46PH(1B) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) (AHRC Act) by a delegate of the President of that Commission due to there being no reasonable prospects of the matter being settled by conciliation PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – adjudication of four interlocutory disputes, being three interlocutory applications and a notice of objection to competency – where each arise out of s 46PO(1) of the AHRC Act – whether the Court has jurisdiction under the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) to adjudicate upon the notice of objection to competency – whether the grant of extension of time is in the interests of the administration of justice – consideration of whether there is an arguable case for unlawful gender discrimination – held: the notice of objection to competency is dismissed and the applicant's extension of time application is granted COSTS – security for costs application by respondents – where the application is brought by the respondent under s 56 of the Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth) and r 19.01 of the Federal Court Rules against the applicant who is a natural person – maximum costs application by the applicant under r 40.51 – where application is brought in relation to costs of both applicant and respondents – consideration of principles guiding the exercise of the Court's discretion under r 40.51 to grant a maximum costs order – held: the respondent's security for costs application is dismissed, the applicant's maximum costs application is granted only in relation to costs of and incidental to the preparation and hearing of the competing arguments as to constitutional validity and statutory construction up to a sum of $50,000; respondents to pay the applicant's costs for all four interlocutory disputes