ACT CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CASINO CANBERRA LIMITED ACN 051 204 114 v KIDMAN (Appeal) [2022] ACAT 22
AA 25/2020 (DT 32/2019)
Catchwords: APPEAL – discrimination – Original Tribunal found that employer discriminated against an employee – whether Original Tribunal erred in deciding that employee was engaged in industrial activity, and the employer treated the employee unfavourably because of the industrial activity – whether Original Tribunal erred in ordering employer to pay employee a sum of general damages – whether the sum ordered was appropriate – whether the Original Tribunal erred in ordering the employer to pay the employee’s legal costs for the second day of hearing – whether the amount of costs ordered was appropriate – appeal dismissed
Legislation cited: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 ss 7, 8, 26, 30, 48, 82
Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) ss 5, 10
Discrimination Act 1991 ss 4A, 7, 8, 10, Dictionary
Equality Act 2010 (UK) s 15
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 346, 360
Human Rights Commission Act 2005 s 53E
Legal Profession Act 2006 ss 7, 16
Subordinate
Legislation cited: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Procedure Rules 2020 r 45
ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Directions 2009 (repealed) pt 4, r 8
Legal Profession Regulation 2007 r 8
Legal Profession (Solicitors) Conduct Rules 2015 r 27
Cases cited:Abraham v Thomas [2020] ACAT 41
Alexander v Home Office [1988] 1 WLR 968
Applicant 202053 v Employers Mutual Limited [2022] ACAT 9Australian Capital Territory v Wang [2019] ACAT 65
Barrak Corporation Pty Ltd v The Kara Group of Companies Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 395
Birkett Investments Pty v Streatfield Investments Pty Ltd [2016] ACTSC 323
Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of Technical and Further Education v Barclay [No 1] [2012] HCA 32
Brown v Guss (No 2) [2015] VSC 57
Campbell v Blackshaw & Evans [2017] ACAT 64
CFMEU v BHP Coal Pty Ltd [2014] HCA 41
CIC Australia Ltd v Australian Capital Territory Planning and Land Authority [2013] ACTSC 96
Collector of Customs v Pozzolanic (1993) 43 FCR 280
Complainant 201823 v Insurance Australia Group Ltd trading as NRMA [2019] ACAT 64
Complainant 201922 v Barac [2020] ACAT 37
Cooley v Australian National University [2007] ACTDT 2
Council of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory v LP 201920 [2021] ACAT 16
Edgley v Federal Capital Press of Australia Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 379
Excel Intelligent Pty Ltd v Thomson [2018] ACAT 4
Ezekiel-Hart v Council of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory [2021] ACAT 116
Giusida Pty Ltd v Commissioner for ACT Revenue [2016] ACTSC 275
Harada v Barnes & Anor [2021] ACAT 66
Harrison v P & T Tube MillsPty Ltd [2009] FCA 220
He v Qin & Ors [2021] ACAT 129
House v The King [1936] HCA 40
In the Estate of Shirley Eileen Kendall [2020] ACTSC 42
Kallinicos v Hunt [2005] NSWSC 1181
Kidman v Canberra Casino Ltd ACN 051 204 114 [2020] ACAT 50
Koehler v Cerebos…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Casino Canberra Limited v Kidman 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2022] ACAT 22
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Orders
Orders of the court
The Tribunal orders that:
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.