conduct to redress any loss or damage suffered by an applicant;
(c) an order requiring a respondent to employ or re‑employ an applicant;
(d) an order requiring a respondent to pay to an applicant damages by way of compensation for any loss or damage suffered because of the conduct of the respondent;
(e) an order requiring a respondent to vary the termination of a contract or agreement to redress any loss or damage suffered by an applicant;
(f) an order declaring that it would be inappropriate for any further action to be taken in the matter.
209 The readily apparent purpose of s 46PO(3) is to limit applications alleging unlawful discrimination to those that have been screened through the AHRC (Grigor-Scott v Jones [2008] FCAFC 14; 168 FCR 450 at [19], Emmett, Lander and Tracey JJ), as opposed to complaining to the AHRC being a mere technical requirement or stop off point for the initiation of proceedings. The significance of this jurisdictional limitation for this proceeding is that Ms Tickle's claim of aggravated damages relies in part on conduct of the respondents that occurred after she filed her complaint, namely that they refused to reinstate her access to the Giggle App in the face of her complaint to the Commissioner. It is difficult, if not impossible, to fit any of the remedies listed above for such conduct within the terms of s 46PO(3), as to do so would be inherently illogical, or even conceptually incoherent. Despite this, in considering a number of the remedies below, I have assumed that this problem does not arise.
210 Ms Tickle also relies on adverse public comments made by Ms Grover about her and, on their face, transgender women more generally, after her AHRC complaint and during the course of these proceedings before trial to ground a claim for aggravated damages. That claim is dealt with separately at Part 6(c)(iv) below. In that sense, her case had the flavour of a victimisation claim brought under s 94 of the SDA, which may be founded on a person subjecting another person to detriment for making a complaint or initiating a proceeding under the SDA or the AHRC Act: SDA s 94(2)(a) and (b). Section 94 constitutes a deliberate legislative step to address post-complaint conduct so as to dispense with the jurisdictional problem otherwise presented by the terms of s 46PO(3). In fact, Ms Tickle's originating application made reference to seeking a declaration that the respondents had contravened, among other things, s 94 of the SDA and therefore at least implicitly included a claim of victimisation. However, this was not reflected in either her original statement of claim, nor her amended statement of claim, as one of the remedies she was seeking. Nor did she make any submissions referring to
