Daw v QR Limited

CITATION: Daw v QR Limited and Anor [2011] QCAT 319

PARTIES:	Sami Daw
v
QR Limited and Steven Hales

APPLICATION NUMBER:   ADL095-10

MATTER TYPE: Anti-discrimination matters

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: C Endicott, Senior Member

DELIVERED ON: 22 June 2011

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:     Application to amend complaint is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION – amendment sought of complaint to include victimisation, impairment and to add other respondents – where matters had failed threshold test and found not to be within jurisdiction of Commission – where matters not accepted by Anti-Discrimination Commission and not referred to tribunal – where further matters constituted fresh complaints

Anti-Discrimination Act 1991, ss 136, 142(1), 175, 178

Hopper v Mt Isa Mines (1999) 2 QdR 496

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

The hearing took place on the papers in the absence of the parties under section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Sami Daw is the complainant in proceedings in the tribunal brought under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991.  In his complaint lodged on 30 September 2009 in the Anti-Discrimination Commission Queensland Mr Daw sought to complain about alleged contraventions of the Act by QR Limited, Steven Hales, Francisco Siliezar and Wayne Longley.  Mr Daw specified in his complaint form that the attributes on which his complaint was based were race and religious belief.  He alleged that unlawful discrimination had occurred at work and he alleged that he had been subject to victimisation.

2. The Commission determined that only the allegations against Steven Hales which occurred between January 2007 and February 2008 reached the threshold for acceptance under section 136 of the Act. The Commission accordingly did not accept as part of the complaint to be investigated, conciliated and referred any allegations by Mr Daw of events occurring after February 2008, any allegations by Mr Daw against Mr Siliezar and Longley and the allegations of victimisation.

3. The Commission was unable to conciliate the accepted complaint and referred the complaint to the tribunal on 27 September 2010. 

4. In his contentions filed in the tribunal on 31 January 2011 Mr Daw set out a summary of his allegations as comprising direct discrimination based on race against QR Limited and Steven Hales, victimisation by QR Limited, Francisco Siliezar and Wayne Longley and direct discrimination based on impairment against Wayne Longley and QR Limited. 

5. Mr Daw stated in his contentions that the allegations of victimisation had not been accepted by the Commission and he requested that the tribunal exercise discretion to allow the necessary amendment to his complaint to include the victimisation allegations.  Mr Daw stated further in his contentions that the allegations based on impairment had not been part of his original complaint and he requested that the tribunal exercise discretion to allow the necessary amendment to his complaint to include the impairment discrimination allegations.

6. In response to directions made by the tribunal, Mr Daw filed submissions in support of his requests for amendments to the complaint.  The…