Gao v Macquarie Bank Limited
Citation: [2026] FCA 289
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
Gao 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 Gao'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.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2026/2026fca0289This summary was drafted by AI from the published decision and reviewed before publishing. It is general information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, speak to the Fair Work Ombudsman (13 13 94) or a qualified lawyer. About these summaries & corrections →