the Applicant v Macquarie Bank Limited
At a glance
- 1
What happened
The Applicant brought a discrimination claim in the Federal Court of Australia against Macquarie Bank Limited and individual respondents. The individual respondents had not been named as respondents in the original complaint lodged with the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), though they had been notified of the complaint as persons subject to adverse allegations under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth). The individual respondents applied for summary dismissal of the claims against them on that basis. A separate application was also made to strike out paragraphs in the Applicant's statement of claim that went beyond the scope of the original AHRC complaint.
What was decided
The court considered two procedural questions: whether individuals notified of an AHRC complaint, but not formally named as respondents to it, could be sued as respondents in subsequent Federal Court proceedings; and whether pleaded allegations that were not part of the original AHRC complaint could remain in the statement of claim. The source text does not detail the final ruling on these applications, so the specific outcome and reasoning cannot be confirmed from the available material.
What it means for employers
Employers and their staff should be aware that individuals named during an AHRC complaint process, even if not formally listed as respondents, may face arguments that they can be joined to later court proceedings. Carefully managing who is identified during the AHRC complaint stage, and ensuring that all relevant conduct is included in the original complaint, is important to avoid procedural complications later.
What it means for employees
Employees making discrimination complaints should include all relevant allegations and identify all intended respondents when lodging a complaint with the AHRC. Raising new allegations or targeting additional individuals only at the court stage may result in those parts of the claim being struck out, limiting what a court can consider.
Want this applied to your situation?
Reading the decision is free. FairWork Mate goes further — it reads the full case library and applies precedents like this one to your specific facts, citing the cases as it reasons. General information, not a guaranteed outcome or legal advice.
Send your details to Liquid Employment Lawyers
Liquid Employment Lawyers is a paid legal service and our referral partner, not free Fair Work advice. FairWork Mate may receive a referral fee from Liquid Legal. Tell them what has happened and a member of their team will call you back. For free general guidance, use our tools or call the Fair Work Ombudsman on 13 13 94.
Prefer to read first? About Liquid Employment Lawyers · Not sure if you need a lawyer? Read the legal help guides
Want more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The AI advisor answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus — awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts — with a citation to the underlying decision on every answer.
FairWork Mate AI
This is one decision. Pro reads all of them.
Free case pages cite the top 250 decisions. Pro opens the full Fair Work Commission and Federal Court library, cross-references your own situation against it, and cites the decision behind every answer — plus document upload, so it can read your letter or contract line by line. 150 questions a month, cancel anytime.
Renews monthly at A$29.99 until you cancel. By continuing you agree to our Terms.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.