Brown v McArthur and Walters

The appeal before the Court was brought by eight women, who were clients of the first respondent, against a decision of the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner not to allow their complaints against the first respondent. The complaints were of sexual harassment while the women were undergoing massage therapy sessions with the first respondent. The Anti-Discrimination Commissioner had declined to allow the complaints because they were all filed outside of the one-year limitation period stipulated by the Anti-Discrimination Act, which provides that complaints must be brought within one year of the discriminatory act, subject to the discretion of the Commissioner if the complainant shows "good cause".

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the Commissioner had exercised his discretion properly in declining to accept the complaints as being out of time, and whether there was an error in the Commissioner’s assessment of "good cause". Specifically, the Court had to determine whether the Commissioner had considered the strength or weakness of the complainants’ cases when exercising his discretion, and whether there was a reasonable explanation for the delay by the complainants in lodging their complaints. Another aspect of the appeal was whether the Commissioner erred by not referring to the circumstance that each complainant alleged she was one of a group of victims.

The Court found that the Commissioner had not erred in his exercise of discretion in declining to accept the complaints. The Court held that the Commissioner had properly considered the concept of "good cause" and was entitled to consider the reasonableness of the delay in lodging the complaints. The Court also found that there was no error in the Commissioner’s assessment of "good cause", as the Commissioner was not required to consider the strength or weakness of the complainants’ cases. The Court concluded that there was no reasonable explanation for the delay in lodging the complaints and that the Commissioner had not overlooked the fact that each complainant alleged she was one of a group of victims.

The Court dismissed the appeal, with no order as to costs in relation to the first respondent.