Chi v Technical and Further Education Commission (EOD)

Appeal Panel - Internal

CITATION:	Chi v Technical and Further Education Commission (EOD) [2010] NSWADTAP 67
PARTIES:	APPELLANT Johny Chi RESPONDENT Technical and Further Education Commission
FILE NUMBER:	099073
HEARING DATES:	31 May 2010
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	31 May 2010
DATE OF DECISION:	11 October 2010
BEFORE:	Patten D - Deputy President; Huntsman C - Judicial Member; Hiffernan N - Non-Judicial Member
CATCHWORDS:	Alleged Victimisation – not established – whether detriment proved
DECISION UNDER APPEAL:	Chi v Technical and Further Education Commission (No 3) [2009] NSWADT 271
FILE NUMBER UNDER APPEAL:	061089
LEGISLATION CITED:	Anti Discrimination Act 1997 Technical and Further Education Commission Act 1990
CASES CITED:	Nicholls and anor v Director-General Department of Education and Training (No 2) (2009) NSW ADTAP 20 Shaikh v Commissioner of NSW Fire Brigades (1996) EOC 92-808 Purvis v NSW (2003) 217 CLR 92 Ewsdale v the Queen [2000] 202 CLR 321 Sivananthan v Commissioner of Police [2001] NSWADT 44 Building Professionals Board v Harm (GD) [2008] NSW ADTAP13 K v K [2002] NSWSC 1052
REPRESENTATION:	APPELLANT J Darams - Counsel RESPONDENT P Ginters – Counsel
ORDERS:	1. Appeal dismissed 2. Orders made by the Tribunal confirmed 3. Leave to extend appeal to hearing on merits refused 4. No order as to costs.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1 This is an appeal from an original decision of the Tribunal in the Equal Opportunity Division given on 22 October 2009. The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's complaints of victimisation and discrimination contrary to the Anti Discrimination Act (the Act). At the hearing of the appeal Mr J Darams appeared for the appellant (the applicant at first instance) and Mr P Ginters for the respondent (the respondent at first instance).

2 The Tribunal identified two issues before it as:

(a) whether on 2 February 2005, Ms Siljanovic - who was at the time Head Teacher, Information Technology, Web Development at Ultimo College – engaged in impermissible victimisation of Mr Chi when she allegedly refused to allow him to enrol in certain course modules because of a prior complaint made by him (the victimisation incident); and

(b) whether on 3 February 2005, Ms Bennett – who was at the time Assistant Director, Educational Programs at Ultimo College – discriminated against Mr Chi on the ground of disability when, during a meeting with Mr Chi, she summoned TAFE security staff and allegedly instructed them to prevent Mr Chi from leaving her office and thereafter allegedly directed them to follow him off the campus.

3 The Notice of Appeal prepared by the appellant himself listed some 20 grounds of appeal which for the most part were in very general terms and failed to identify the point sought to be argued. Some 15 grounds were asserted to involve questions of law, the remaining five relating to the merits of the application upon which leave was sought.

4 In his written submissions to us Mr Darams reduced the grounds of appeal to 3 namely:

a) the Tribunal acted upon wrong principles of law

b)…