Braiding v Charles Sturt University

In the case of Braidwood v Charles Sturt University, the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal was tasked with considering the content of a complaint that had been referred to it by the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board. The applicant sought to amend the complaint to include additional allegations of discrimination. The dispute centred on the scope of the complaint as referred by the President, and whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the amended complaint. The court had to decide whether the President had exercised any discretion to exclude certain parts of the complaint, and whether the Tribunal had the authority to hear the additional allegations proposed by the applicant.

The primary legal issues revolved around the interpretation of the referral by the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board and the jurisdictional limits of the Tribunal in hearing amended complaints. The applicant argued that the President had not exercised any discretion to exclude parts of the complaint, and thus the entire complaint should be considered. Additionally, the applicant sought to amend the complaint to include additional allegations, which the respondent contested on the grounds of procedural fairness and relevance. The court had to determine the relevance and admissibility of the proposed amendments in light of the original referral.

In delivering its decision, the Tribunal found that the President had not exercised any discretion to exclude parts of the complaint, and therefore the entire complaint was referred to the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal held that the applicant's proposed amendments were not admissible as they introduced new matters not contemplated in the original complaint. The Tribunal concluded that allowing the amendments would result in unfairness to the respondent and a deviation from the original scope of the complaint. Consequently, the application to amend the complaint was dismissed.

The Tribunal made several orders, including dismissing the allegation that the respondent breached section 52 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW). The application to amend the complaint to include additional allegations was also refused. The applicant was directed to file amended points of claim within three weeks, in accordance with the Tribunal's reasons. The matter was subsequently listed for a case conference on 16 December 2015.