Clinch v Rep

The applicant, Clinch, initiated proceedings against the respondent, Rep, in the Australian Capital Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The dispute concerns alleged discriminatory and victimising conduct by Rep on social media. The court was tasked with deciding preliminary jurisdictional and procedural issues, including the admissibility of certain social media posts as evidence and the merits of a motion to dismiss the proceedings as vexatious or frivolous.

The court identified the legal issues to be resolved, focusing on the applicability of sections 67A and 68 of the Discrimination Act 1991 to the social media posts in question. The court examined whether certain posts could incite discrimination or constitute victimisation, and whether the proceedings should be dismissed for being vexatious or frivolous. The court also considered the proper procedure for the scheduling and exchange of evidence between the parties.

In its decision, the court found that several social media posts were capable of incitement under section 67A and some constituted victimisation under section 68 of the Discrimination Act 1991. The court refused the application to dismiss the proceedings for lack of jurisdiction and on the basis that the complaint was vexatious or frivolous. The court outlined the procedural steps to be taken, including the scheduling of a hearing, the exchange of schedules of allegations, and the filing of further evidence. The court also directed the Registrar to notify relevant authorities of specific findings.

The court made several orders, including the refusal of the application to dismiss the proceedings, the limitation of the proceedings to a specified timeframe, and the scheduling of a hearing. The applicant was required to file a detailed schedule of allegations and any further evidence within specific deadlines. The court also instructed the Registrar to provide a copy of the reasons for the decision to certain authorities and to highlight a particular paragraph in its decision.