Background
Amreen Mohal, a minor acting through her mother as litigation representative, alleged that Australian Christian College at Marsden Park discriminated against her because of her race and ethnic origin. She said the school required her to remove her Kara, a steel bracelet she had worn since birth as a Sikh, issued her detentions when she did not remove it, and later cancelled her enrolment.
After the Australian Human Rights Commission complaint was terminated, Amreen commenced Federal Court proceedings under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth). The College filed a 130-page defence and a cross-claim against Amreen’s parents personally, alleging false enrolment representations, breach of contract, and a duty to disclose matters including Amreen’s religious background and alleged personality traits.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Needham struck out the College’s entire defence, including the purported cross-claim contained within it. The pleading was inconsistent with the Federal Court Rules because it was excessively lengthy, structurally complex, argumentative, and embarrassing and prejudicial; it did not clearly respond to the statement of claim by admissions, denials, non-admissions, or assertions of lack of knowledge. The College may file an amended defence by 23 October 2026.
The Court dismissed the separate cross-claim summarily and refused leave to replead it. The alleged duty of care owed by parents to the school to disclose their child’s religious or cultural background, or alleged propensities, was not tenable in law. The contractual and misrepresentation claims were also untenable on the pleaded case. The Court removed the defence and cross-claim from the court file because they contained unsupported allegations about a minor and her home address, and ordered the College to pay the applicants’ interlocutory costs.
Key Takeaways
- A defence must state material facts briefly and clearly, and directly identify the response to the claimant’s allegations.
- Sikh identity may fall within the Racial Discrimination Act’s protection of ethnic origin; the Act does not require an inability to comply with a condition to be purely physical.
- A school cannot use a cross-claim to shift potential discrimination liability to a student’s parents on the pleaded theories advanced here.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that human-rights proceedings in the Federal Court remain subject to ordinary pleading standards. Length, technical language, extensive evidentiary detail, and hypothetical characterisations cannot obscure the issues a party must meet.
It also confirms the Court’s willingness to protect a minor from public access to unsupported and sensitive pleading allegations, while leaving open the school’s ability to advance a properly pleaded substantive defence.