Rindeklev v Comcare [2024] FCA 804

Federal Court of Australia

Rindeklev v Comcare [2024] FCA 804 File number: WAD 6 of 2024

Judgment of: COLVIN J

Date of judgment: 23 July 2024

Catchwords: HUMAN RIGHTS - application for leave to advance claim of unlawful discrimination under s 46PO(3A) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) - where complaint alleged respondent's conduct (in filing witness statement containing statements offensive to applicant in Administrative Appeal Tribunal proceedings) amounted to sexual harassment in contravention of the Sex Discrimination Act 1983 (Cth) - where complaint to Australian Human Rights Commission terminated for being misconceived or lacking substance - consideration of matters relevant to Court's discretion to grant leave - consideration of merits of applicant's claim - held impugned conduct could not satisfy statutory definition of sexual harassment - held applicant's claim not arguable - leave refused PRIVILEGE - witness immunity - where respondent raised witness immunity as defence to applicant's claim - consideration of merits of that defence

Legislation: Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s 60 Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) ss 46PH, 46PO Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) ss 28A, 28B, 28G, 28L, 105, 106 Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors' Conduct Rules 2015 (WA) r 21

Cases cited: Clyne v New South Wales Bar Association (1960) 104 CLR 186 Commonwealth of Australia v Griffiths [2007] NSWCA 370; (2007) 70 NSWLR 268 D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid [2005] HCA 12; (2005) 223 CLR 1 Hughes trading as Beesley and Hughes Lawyers v Hill [2020] FCAFC 126; (2020) 277 FCR 511 James v WorkPower Inc [2018] FCA 2083 Vitality Works Australia Pty Ltd v Yelda (No 2) [2021] NSWCA 147; (2021) 105 NSWLR 403 Watson v M'Ewan [1905] AC 480 Weir v Telstra Limited [2023] FCAFC 196; (2023) 301 FCR 261