Burns v Blyth

[2024] QCAT 340

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Burns v Blyth [2024] QCAT 340

PARTIES:

GARRY BURNS

(applicant)

v

GARY KENNETH BLYTH

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

ADL037-22

MATTER TYPE:

Anti-discrimination matters

DELIVERED ON:

15 August 2024

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Lumb

ORDERS:

The Respondent’s application that the proceeding be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

HUMAN RIGHTS – JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – where the applicant made a complaint against respondent to the Queensland Human Rights Commission under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) – where Commission referred complaint to the Tribunal identifying vilification pursuant to s 124A of the Act – whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with the matter

Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), s 124A, s 136, s 139, s 141, s 166, s 172, s 175

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 100, s 102

Fraser v State of Queensland & Ors [2024] QCAT 57

Simpson (aka Bird) and Beitsch and Forbes-Beitsch v Button [1997] QADT 16
State of Queensland v Walters [2007] 2 Qd R 451
The Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane v Smith [2013] QCATA 254

Toodayan & Anor v Anti-Discrimination CommissionerQueensland [2018] QCA 349

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

1. This matter involves a complaint brought by the Applicant against the Respondent under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) (‘the ADA’).

1. The matter has been referred to the Tribunal by the Queensland Human Rights Commissioner (‘the Commissioner’)[1] in consequence of a complaint initiated by the Applicant on 10 May 2021 (‘the Complaint’). The referral comprised a Referral of a matter (non-disciplinary) and attached material (‘the Referral’) which was received by the Tribunal on 27 April 2022.

   [1]In these reasons, a reference to the Commissioner will include a reference to a delegate of the Commissioner.

2. On 23 January 2023, the Tribunal made directions that included a direction that the Respondent file and serve ‘any submissions on the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear and decide the proceeding’ (‘the Direction’).

3. On 23 February 2023, the Respondent filed written submissions on jurisdiction (‘the Respondent’s submissions’).

4. On 16 March 2023, the Applicant filed written submissions on the issue of jurisdiction (‘the Applicant’s submissions’).

5. The Applicant also filed an affidavit of Sonia Irene Read affirmed on 16 March 2023 (‘Ms Read’s affidavit’).

6. Despite apparent dispute between the parties as to the need for the Respondent to file an application,[2] in light of the Direction, I am content to proceed on the basis that the Respondent’s submissions constitute an application that the proceeding be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

   [2]Respondent's submissions, [1]-[4], Applicant's submissions [3](a).

7. In order to address the parties’ respective arguments, I consider it convenient to set out a chronology of the relevant facts.

   Chronology

8. As noted above, the Applicant’s complaint was initiated on 10 May 2021.[3]

   [3]Referral, Part C,…