Atasoy v Body Corporate for Beachhouse Terraces CTS 26891

[2015] QCAT 14

CITATION: Atasoy v Body Corporate for Beachhouse Terraces CTS 26891 & Ors [2015] QCAT 14

PARTIES:	Alev Atasoy (Applicant)
v
Body Corporate for Beachhouse Terraces CTS 26891 (First Respondent) Carol Cooper (Second Respondent) Rhonda Fortescue (Third Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: ADL066-14

MATTER TYPE: Anti-discrimination matters

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Acting Senior Member Endicott

DELIVERED ON: 15 January 2015

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: The application by Alev Atasoy to attend the compulsory conference in this proceeding by telephone is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION – where complaint made based on race and religion – where complainant lives in same unit block as some of the respondents

CONFERENCE – where parties directed to attend and participate in a compulsory conference – where complainant sought leave to attend the conference by telephone due to feelings of intimidation – where no evidence produced to corroborate assertion of medical condition – whether sufficient grounds to depart from general requirement that parties attend a conference in person

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 ss 29, 67, 69

APPEARANCES:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Alev Atasoy has made a complaint that she has been subjected to unlawful discrimination on the basis of her race and religion.  Her complaint has been referred to the Tribunal for determination.  Directions were made including a direction that the parties participate in a compulsory conference on 19 January 2015.

2. Ms Atasoy applied for leave to attend the compulsory conference by telephone.  She stated in her application that she feels intimidated by the respondents.  She stated that she is representing herself and the respondents have legal representation.  She stated that the respondents have made her a prisoner in her own home and that they talk about her and stare at her.  Ms Atasoy stated that she could not handle all of the respondents being in one place with her.  She stated that she had been experiencing panic attacks as the day of the conference was approaching. 

3. Ms Atasoy did not file any medical reports to substantiate her statements that she was experiencing panic attacks.  She did not allege that she could not take part in the conference due to panic attacks. 

4. It is an essential part of the tribunal processes that parties participate in conferences so that the issues in dispute can be identified, clarified and discussed, questions of law can be identified and discussed and parties can genuinely consider whether the dispute can be settled.  Members who conduct conferences are experienced and skilled in alternate dispute resolution and work with the parties both in open session and privately to promote a resolution of the dispute.

5. The most effective manner for a dispute to be discussed and resolved during a conference occurs when the parties can sit across a table and frankly discuss the issues in the dispute in a confidential environment. The tribunal uses conferences to discharge the obligations in section 29 of the QCAT Act. In doing so, the member conducting the conference must take all reasonable steps to understand the assertions of a party having regard to that person’s cultural and religious background.

6. The tribunal considers that the most effective way to ensure that a party understands the issues and the legal implications of the assertions made by other parties is for a member to be able to speak directly to each party in as an open a way as is possible.  It is the general expectation of the tribunal that parties attend a conference in person.  Leave can be granted to permit attendance by other means if a reasonable basis for leave is provided.  However telephone attendance can be problematical as the parties cannot pick up on body language, cannot read documents that are produced at a conference and telephone conferences do not permit flexibility with informal and simultaneously discussions happening with the parties and the member. 

7. In this case, the application by Ms Atasoy did not provide any evidence that she would be disadvantaged due to medical reasons if she had to attend the conference in person.  Ms Atasoy does not have to attend the conference alone.  She can bring a support person to be with her if she chooses.  In addition, the member can make practical arrangements at the conference to have regular breaks if Ms Atasoy were to experience any discomfort at the conference.  If it should become necessary, the member could decide to terminate an open session and proceed with private sessions only.

8. Ms Atasoy did not establish an adequate basis for leave to be granted to depart from the usual requirement that parties attend in person and her application was refused.