Beck v Headland Golf Club - [2021] QCAT 354

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Beck v Headland Golf Club & anor [2021] QCAT 354

PARTIES:

ANDREW BECK

(applicant)

v

HEADLAND GOLF CLUB
JOHN WELCH

(respondents)

APPLICATION NO/S:

ADL019-21

MATTER TYPE:

Anti-discrimination matters

DELIVERED ON:

19 October 2021

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Traves

ORDERS:

The application for an interim order is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – application for an interim order before referral of discrimination complaint – whether interim order should be made

Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), s 6, s 95(e), s 144, s 209

Coop v State of Queensland [2014] QCATA 205

Jones v Queensland Health [2010] QCAT 700

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

Self-represented

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

Andrew Beck was suspended as a member of the Headland Golf Club on 24 May 2021. On 25 May 2021 he lodged a complaint with the Queensland Human Rights Commission (QHRC). The Tribunal is not aware of any further action having been taken by the QHRC to date in relation to that complaint.
On 18 June 2021 Mr Beck applied to the Tribunal for interim orders to:
(a)stay the decision by the Management Committee of the Headland Golf Club to suspend his membership; and
(b)prohibit any suspension, revocation or cancellation of his membership until a Tribunal Hearing of his complaint.
The Tribunal has power under s 174A of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1999 (Qld) (ADA) ‘in relation to complaints that are referred, or to be referred, to QCAT … to make orders under section 144 before the complaints are referred to the tribunal’.
Section 144 of the ADA provides:
144 APPLICATIONS FOR ORDERS PROTECTING COMPLAINANT’S INTERESTS (BEFORE REFERENCE TO TRIBUNAL)
(1) At any time before a complaint is referred to the tribunal, the complainant or the commissioner may apply, as provided under the relevant tribunal Act, to the tribunal for an order prohibiting a person from doing an act that might prejudice—
(a) the investigation or conciliation of the complaint; or
(b) an order that the tribunal might make after a hearing.
(2) A party or the commissioner may apply, as provided under the relevant tribunal Act, to the tribunal for an order varying or revoking an order made under subsection (1).
(3) If the tribunal is satisfied it is in the interests of justice, an application for an order under subsection (1) may be heard in the absence of the respondent to the application.
Section 209 of the ADA sets out the relief which may be granted by the Tribunal after a hearing if it decides that a respondent has contravened the ADA. That relief includes an order requiring the respondent to do “specified things” to address loss or damage suffered by the complainant because of the contravention.
By s 209(4)(a) the specified things the Tribunal may order to be…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Beck v Headland Golf Club 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: [2021] QCAT 354
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Andrew Beck, sought an interim order from the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) to stay his suspension as a member of the Headland Golf Club and to prohibit the Club from further suspending, revoking, or cancelling his membership. The application was made before any referral of his complaint to QCAT by the Queensland Human Rights Commission (QHRC). The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether an interim order under s 144 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) should be made and if so, what form that order should take. The Tribunal considered the principles applicable to the grant of an interlocutory injunction and found that Mr Beck had not demonstrated a serious question to be tried or a prima facie case that would justify the preservation of the status quo pending the hearing. The Tribunal was not satisfied that if an order was not made prohibiting the continued suspension or revocation of Mr Beck's membership, it would cause prejudice to the orders which the Tribunal might otherwise make after a hearing. Accordingly, the application for an order under s 144 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) was dismissed. The Tribunal did not make any orders in relation to the application for interim relief.

Orders