Ex-employee claims wrongful treatment after disclosing work-related psychiatric injury
In a recent case involving claims under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth), Australia’s Federal Court deemed an early mediation and agreed compromise plainly desirable to spare a litigant with psychiatric illness from the hardship of litigation.
In Norman v Inner West Council, [2025] FCA 1194, the respondent and its predecessor employed the applicant from 1999–2025.
The self-represented applicant filed an originating application, a statement of claim, and an affidavit dated 6 August 2025. He made claims under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth), the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) and various employment legislation aspects. He alleged wrongful treatment from the respondent after he disclosed a work-related psychiatric injury.
The present proceedings revolved around the first case management hearing.
The applicant filed an interlocutory application dated 19 September 2025. He requested orders for discovery, an affidavit, and supporting submissions. He also asked the court to hear his interlocutory application immediately.
Alternatively, the applicant requested a referral to a lawyer for legal assistance in the proceedings under r 4.12 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).
The respondent sought orders for the provision of further and better particulars, the finalisation of pleadings through filing a defence and a reply, and a referral to a registrar for mediation. It put forward a timetable to prepare the interlocutory application for hearing.
The respondent alleged that the applicant made a premature interlocutory discovery application and an improperly pleaded statement of claim.
The Federal Court of Australia considered it appropriate to refer the applicant to a lawyer for legal assistance under r 4.12.
The court acknowledged its authority under r 1.35 to issue orders inconsistent with the Rules and that orders for discovery could be appropriate before the filing of a defence in some cases. However, the court deemed departing from r 20.13(3) unwarranted in this case.
First, the court found a real prospect of the revision of the statement of claim in form and substance if a legal practitioner was willing and able to represent the applicant pro bono.
Second, the court said the respondent should proceed with its request for further particulars, which would assist the applicant or his legal representatives, if any, in clearly and directly conveying the case and helping the respondent understand it.
Third, the court said the respondent should then file its defence, while the applicant should submit a reply if appropriate.
Fourth, the court found it appropriate to refer the matter to a registrar for mediation to enable the parties to agree on the scope of discovery and other pre-trial steps even if the mediation would not resolve the underlying dispute.
Fifth, if the mediation fell through, the court planned to consider further steps relating to the pre-trial preparation, including the applicant’s application for discovery,
The court concluded that this proposed course would serve the best interests of both parties and the overarching purpose in s 37M of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).
