Background
KTM24, a woman who had worked at mining sites associated with Rio Tinto, commenced a representative proceeding on behalf of herself and other women who worked at Rio Tinto’s Australian workplaces. The proceeding alleged unlawful discrimination under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) and Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), including sexual harassment, sex-based harassment and sex discrimination, as well as negligence.
KTM24 had previously lodged an individual and representative complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission. The Commission accepted claims including sex and pregnancy discrimination, sexual harassment, sex-based harassment for conduct from 11 September 2021, and hostile-workplace-environment allegations for conduct from 12 December 2022, but did not accept her family-responsibilities and victimisation claims. After conciliation failed, the complaint was terminated and KTM24 began the Federal Court proceeding. Rio Tinto sought to strike out all or parts of the pleading, while KTM24 sought leave to amend the group definition and originating documents.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Younan largely rejected Rio Tinto’s strike-out application. The Court did not accept the company’s broader arguments that KTM24 lacked standing to conduct the representative proceeding, that group members themselves had to satisfy the asserted standing restriction, or that the claims failed the “same, similar or related circumstances” requirement in s 33C(1)(b) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). The statutory human-rights complaint regime and the federal class-action regime could operate together, including where related negligence claims had not passed through the Commission process.
The Court nevertheless struck out KTM24’s victimisation claim and the pleaded claim concerning group members’ “sexual assault” because they fell outside the Court’s jurisdiction under s 46PO(3), as defined by the terminated Commission complaint. It also struck out specified pleading paragraphs under r 16.21 for deficiencies in the pleaded material facts, while granting leave to provide particulars or replead them. KTM24 received leave to amend the group-member definition and originating application substantially as proposed, subject to specified exceptions and clarification, and Rio Tinto was ordered to pay her costs.
Key Takeaways
- An affected person may use the federal representative-proceeding regime to pursue discrimination claims for other affected persons arising from the terminated Commission complaint.
- Related common-law claims, including negligence claims, may be included when they satisfy the requirements of s 33C, even though they were not processed by the Commission.
- Claims under s 46PO must remain within the scope of the terminated complaint, and class-action pleadings must still allege sufficient material facts with a sufficiently certain group definition.
Why It Matters
The decision permits the Rio Tinto workplace discrimination class action to continue despite a broad challenge to its standing, jurisdictional basis and commonality. It confirms that the AHRC complaint process does not displace the ordinary operation of Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act.
At the same time, the ruling underscores that the terminated Commission complaint sets jurisdictional limits for statutory discrimination claims. Applicants may combine those claims with qualifying related causes of action, but cannot use the Federal Court proceeding to introduce statutory claims that were not part of the complaint accepted and terminated by the Commission.