Albert v Global Healthcare Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 46 min read

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL


CITATION:

Albert v Global Healthcare Pty Ltd & Ors [2023] QCAT 428

PARTIES: ALBERT

(applicant)

v

GLOBAL HEALTHCARE PTY LTD

(first respondent)

SHELLEY LINDSAY

(second respondent)

ABDUR ALAMGIR

(third respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

ADL010-21

MATTER TYPE:

Anti-discrimination matters

DELIVERED ON:

9 November 2023

HEARING DATES:

25 and 26 October 2023, and later written material

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member P Roney KC

ORDERS:

1.     The application is dismissed.

2. I order that pursuant to s. 191 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) that the identity of the Applicant is not to be disclosed.

3.     I make a direction requiring an amendment to the title of the proceeding to substitute for the Applicant’s name, the pseudonym Albert, and direct that on future tribunal documents the Applicant’s name not appear, and for the word Albert to appear as his name.

4.     The application for a non­publication order, and a closed hearing order are dismissed.

5.     The parties shall  have liberty to apply in respect of any other consequential or other orders which might be required to be made.

CATCHWORDS:

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION – where first respondent Medical practice Initial patient information form required date of birth, age and gender, and marital status, Ethnicity and Country of birth – where applicant existing patient of the medical Practice felt he was required to provide personal information relating to his date of birth, age and gender, and marital status, Ethnicity and Country of birth and was subjected to oral requirements that he provide his religion in order to obtain access to medical records in order to have them sent to another medical practitioner – whether a requirement to provide personal information amounts to contravention of s 124 – whether information reasonably require for a purpose not involving discrimination – whether statutory defence to the respondent’s conduct

Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), s 7, s 8, s 124
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 66, s 191 s 229, s 230,
Age Discrimination Act 2004 (Cth),
Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth),
Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth)

K v S & N Company [2006] QADT 11

Willmott v Woolworths Ltd [2014] QCAT 601

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-Represented

Respondents:

Ms Brooks, Counsel instructed by Cooper Grace Ward Law

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. The Applicant, who is what he self describes as an international student from Canada, of immigrant background, was an existing or former patient of a medical practice operated by the First Respondent. He has filed an application for compensation and other orders because he contends that, in contravention of section 124 of the


    Anti-Discrimination Act 1991

    (Qld) (‘the AD Act’) he was required to provide personal information namely his date of birth, age and gender, and marital status, ethnicity and country of birth and was subjected to oral requirements that he state his religion in order to obtain access to medical records to enable them to be sent to another medical practitioner.

  2. I should mention before turning to deal…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Albert v Global Healthcare Pty Ltd and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2023] QCAT 428
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in this case, Albert, brought a claim against Global Healthcare Pty Ltd, a medical practice, alleging discrimination under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld). Albert claimed that his rights were violated when he was required to provide personal information including his date of birth, age, gender, marital status, ethnicity, and country of birth, and was further asked to disclose his religion to access his medical records and have them sent to another medical practitioner. The case was heard and determined in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

The primary legal issues the tribunal had to address were whether the requirement for Albert to provide personal information constituted a contravention of section 124 of the Anti-Discrimination Act, and if the information requested was reasonably required for a purpose not involving discrimination. Additionally, the tribunal needed to determine if there was a statutory defence available to the respondent’s conduct.

In examining these issues, the tribunal considered whether the personal information required was relevant and necessary for the provision of medical services. The tribunal found that the request for personal information, including religion, was not reasonably necessary for the medical practice to provide its services and was potentially discriminatory. However, the tribunal also considered the statutory defence provisions under the Act, and concluded that the medical practice had a legitimate reason to request the information, which was to ensure the accurate and secure transfer of medical records. Given this, the tribunal held that the statutory defence applied and dismissed the application.

The tribunal further ordered that Albert's identity be protected by substituting his name with a pseudonym, "Albert," in all future documents and proceedings. Additionally, the tribunal dismissed the application for a non-publication order and a closed hearing order. The parties were granted liberty to apply for any other consequential orders that might be necessary.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application is dismissed.

2. I order that pursuant to s. 191 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) that the identity of the Applicant is not to be disclosed.

3. I make a direction requiring an amendment to the title of the proceeding to substitute for the Applicant’s name, the pseudonym Albert, and direct that on future tribunal documents the Applicant’s name not appear, and for the word Albert to appear as his name.

4. The application for a non­publication order, and a closed hearing order are dismissed.

5. The parties shall have liberty to apply in respect of any other consequential or other orders which might be required to be made.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.