Leach v Burston [2022] FCA 87

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – interlocutory application for strike out and/or summary dismissal of applicant’s Points of Claim (POC) – whether it is reasonably arguable that s 46PO(3) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) (AHRC Act) does not preclude the applicant from pursuing proceedings in this Court – whether it is reasonably arguable that the Court has jurisdiction to determine whether respondent contravened s 94(1) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (SD Act) – whether applicant’s claims have a reasonable prospect of success – whether it is reasonably arguable that “acts, omissions or practices” (s 46PO(3)(b) of AHRC Act) are limited to events constituting alleged sexual harassment/discrimination – whether appropriate to determine s 46PO(3) of the AHRC Act and s 94(1) of the SD Act issues in interlocutory application – where Court satisfied it is reasonably arguable that Court has jurisdiction to hear complaint with regard to s 94 of the SD Act – where claims relating to s 28G(2) of the SD Act do not disclose arguable cause of action – s 28G(2) of the SD Act claims to be summarily dismissed/struck out, but balance of claims in POC are reasonably arguable – application otherwise dismissed.

Renae Kumar appeared for the Applicant.

Reasons for the decision can be found here.

Maruf v Secretary, NSW Ministry of Health [2022] NSWCATAD 2

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION – Discrimination on the ground of age – Application to amend complaint made at final hearing – Whether to exercise power to amend complaint – Whether respondent discriminated against applicant on the ground of age in determining who should be offered employment - Whether respondent discriminated against applicant on the ground of age in denying him access to transfers or promotions – Whether respondent or employee of respondent victimised applicant.

Renae Kumar appeared for the Respondent.

Reasons for the decision can be found here.

Hurley v Security & Technology Services (NT) Pty Ltd [2021] FedCFamC2G 181

INDUSTRIAL LAW – FAIR WORK – whether the applicant wrongfully dismissed – whether the first respondent contravened s 44 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – no serious misconduct summary dismissal not justified – contravention of s 44 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) in failing to give notice required under s 117 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – failure to make out serious misconduct within s 123 Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – compensation awarded under s 545 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – interest under s 547 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Renae Kumar appeared for the Applicant.

Reasons for the decision can be found here.

Yalda v Mshref [2021] NSWSC 624

APPEALS – Damages – Negligence – Vehicle accident – Vicarious liability – Abuse of process – Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 (NSW) s 5(1) – Dismissal of statement of claim – Appeal dismissed.

Renae Kumar appeared for the Plaintiff.

Reasons for the decision can be found here.

Smith v Ventia Pty Limited [2021] NSWDC 236

CIVIL PROCEDURE — Preliminary discovery — To identify potential cause of action — reasonable inquiries – claim for privilege

Renae Kumar appeared for the Plaintiff.

Reasons for the decision can be found here.

Dul v Health Secretary, in respect of Sydney Local Health District [2020] NSWIRComm 1082

UNFAIR DISMISSAL – shift swaps – investigation – whether applicant had verbal approval from Supervisor – whether applicant engaged in a serious form of misconduct for personal gain – application granted.

Renae Kumar represented the Applicant.

Reasons for the decision can be found here.

Woollahra Municipal Council v Ayman Tawfils [2020] NSWIRComm 1063

EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRIAL LAW – Industrial Relations Commission – Jurisdiction – Unfair Dismissal Claim – whether applicant required to provide undertaking not to pursue in future an application for reinstatement under Workers Compensation legislation – whether refusal by applicant to provide undertaking deprives Commission of jurisdiction.

Renae Kumar represented the Respondent.

Reasons for the decision can be found here.

INPEX AUSTRALIA PTY LTD v THE AUSTRALIAN WORKERS' UNION [2020] FWCFB 5321

Ian Neil S.C. and Renae Kumar appeared as counsel for INPEX Australia Pty.

The reasons for the decision can be found here.

Alghofaili v SAE Institute Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCATAD 215

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY — leave to proceed — principles applying to grant of leave — race discrimination in education — ethno-religious origin — victimisation.

Renae Kumar represented the Respondent.

The reasons for the decision can be found here.

Nguyen v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 128

MIGRATION – decision of Minister, personally exercising the power under s 501BA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), to set aside revocation decision and to cancel the appellant’s spouse visa – whether Minister’s finding that there was an ongoing likelihood the appellant will re-offend was legally unreasonable – whether the Minister formed the view that he was precluded from inviting the appellant to make submissions or provide further material and thereby misunderstood the operation of s 501BA – Ibrahim v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 89 applied.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – appeal from a single judge of the Court – whether leave should be granted to rely on an amended notice of appeal.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – appeal from a single judge of the Court – whether Full Court should exercise its discretion to receive further evidence.

Theresa Baw and Renae Kumar represented the Appellant.

Reasons for the decision can be found here.