Chut v Brisbane City Council - [2014] QCATA 275

CITATION:

Chut v Brisbane City Council [2014] QCATA 275

PARTIES:	Ayik Chut (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Brisbane City Council (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL061-14

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Endicott
Member Browne

DELIVERED ON:

23 September 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The application to adduce new evidence is refused.

2. The appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – ANTI-DISCRIMINATION – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS – where the applicant was self represented – where applicant alleges he was discriminated against at work because of his Sudanese race – where allegations of direct and indirect discrimination – where the Tribunal found no breach – where the complaint was dismissed – where the applicant appealed on a question of law – where the applicant seeks relief by way of setting aside the Tribunal’s decision – whether grounds for appeal

NEW EVIDENCE – where the applicant seeks leave to admit new evidence – whether new material sought to be produced is relevant to matters already ventilated at the hearing – whether the applicant satisfies the test for admitting new evidence on appeal

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 100, s 102, s 142(3)(b)
Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), s 7, s 10, s 11, s 15, s 133, s 177, s 178, s 204, s 205

Bakker & Kramer v Richards Projects Pty Ltd [2014] QCATA 99, cited
Chut v Brisbane City Council & Turner [2014] QCAT 38
Clarke v Japan Machines (Australia) Pty Ltd [1984] 1 Qd R 404, cited
Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549, cited
Ellis & Anor v Queensland Building Services Authority [2010] QCATA 93, cited
Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550, cited
South Australia v O’Shea (1987) 163 CLR 378, cited
Tsigounis v Medical Board of Qld [2006] QCA 295, cited
W & T Enterprises (Qld) Pty Ltd v Bernau [2010] QCATA 71, cited

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Member Endicott

I have had the advantage of reading the draft reasons prepared by Member Browne. I agree with them and the orders she proposes.

Member Browne

The Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) (‘the ADQ Act’) provides a mechanism for the referral of a complaint, that has been made to the Anti-Discrimination Commission, to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal.[1]
[1]Under s 175 of the ADQ Act the Tribunal must accept a complaint made referred by the Commissioner, unless the complaint was made out of time, as provided in the ADQ Act.
It is the Tribunal’s role having received a complaint from the Anti-Discrimination Commission to ‘hear and decide complaints’ in particular the contentions made to determine whether there has been a contravention of the ADQ Act. The complaint on referral to the Tribunal may for example concern an employee or former employee…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Chut v Brisbane City Council 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] QCATA 275
Decision Date: 23 September 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Chut v Brisbane City Council was a dispute where the applicant, self-represented, alleged discrimination in his workplace due to his Sudanese race. Both direct and indirect discrimination were claimed, but the Tribunal dismissed the complaint, finding no breach. The applicant then appealed to the court, seeking to set aside the Tribunal's decision on a question of law. The court had to determine whether the applicant had grounds for appeal and whether new evidence could be admitted.

The central legal issue was whether the Tribunal erred in law, leading to a decision that should be set aside. The applicant argued that the Tribunal failed to properly consider the evidence and misapplied the law. The court needed to assess whether the Tribunal's decision was legally sound and if it had any basis for appeal. Additionally, the applicant sought to introduce new evidence, which the Tribunal had not considered. The court had to determine if this new evidence was relevant and whether it met the criteria for admission on appeal.

The court examined the Tribunal's decision and found that it was not legally flawed. The Tribunal had considered the evidence and applied the correct legal principles. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal's decision stood. Regarding the new evidence, the court held that it was not relevant to the issues already considered by the Tribunal. Consequently, the application to adduce new evidence was also refused.

The final orders of the court were that the application to introduce new evidence was denied, and the appeal was dismissed. The decision of the Tribunal was upheld, and no further action could be taken on the grounds presented.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application to adduce new evidence is refused.

2. The appeal is refused.

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.