Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: El Kassir v Woolworths Group Limited [2025] NSWCATAD 14 Hearing dates: 2 October 2024, 6 November 2024 Date of orders: 14 January 2025 Decision date: 14 January 2025 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: D Dinnen, Senior Member Decision: Leave is refused under s 96(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) for the Applicant’s complaint to proceed.
Catchwords: HUMAN RIGHTS — discrimination — equal opportunity — leave required for complaint to proceed — principles applying to grant of leave
Legislation Cited: Cases Cited: Chalker v Murrays Australia Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCATAD 282
Ekermawi v Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales [2009] NSWSC 143
Jones v Ekermawi [2009] NSWCA 388
Langley v Niland [1981] 2 NSWLR 104
Munt v Workers Compensation Independent Review Officer [2020] NSWCATAD 156
Prakash v Bobb Borg Enterprises Pty Ltd [1999] NSWADT 73
Spence v Roberts (No 2) [2006] NSWADT 361
Texts Cited: None
Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Hani El Kassir (Applicant)
Woolworths Group Limited (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
Applicant (Self Represented)
D Hawkes (Woolworths Group Limited) (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2024/00297064 Publication restriction: None
REASONS FOR DECISION
Background
-
Hani El Kassir (the Applicant), also known as Saamer El Ali, was banned from all Woolworths stores, Big W and BWS stores following an incident at Woolworths Lakemba on 19 July 2022. The banning notice was issued for “shoplifting or theft”, “abuse or aggressive behaviour” and “threatening or harassing behaviour”, for the period “until revoked in writing by the Woolworths Group National investigations/Asset protection Manager” and was co-signed by the NSW Police.
-
On 23 February 2023 the Applicant attended the Woolworths Bankstown store and got into an altercation with the security guards there. A further banning notice for all Woolworths and Big W stores was issued for “breach of conditions of entry”, “shoplifting or theft”, “abuse or aggressive behaviour” and “threatening or harassing behaviour”, for the period “until revoked in writing by the Woolworths Group National investigations/Asset protection Manager” and was co-signed by the NSW Police.
-
On or around 30 January 2024 the Applicant requested a review of the banning order from Woolworths Group Limited (the Respondent) by submitting an online feedback form, which stated:
On 23 February 2023 I was banned from the Woolworths Bankstown store due to an alleged shoplifting incident. A covert loss prevention officer named “Omar El Basha” (who I believe works at Woolworths Bankstown through a 3rd party security company named Capital Asset Protection Group) had me sign a trespass notice which prohibits me from entering Woolworths Bankstown for a period of one year. Please advise the process for revoking this trespass notice so that I am free to return to shopping at Woolworths Bankstown should I wish to do so.
Please note due to legal purposes I require a response from you in writing.
-
On 20 February 2024 the Applicant spoke to the Respondent’s Customer Service by telephone. On 24 February 2024 the Applicant emailed an apology letter to…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read El Kassir v Woolworths Group Limited 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
- [2025] NSWCATAD 14
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue the court needed to address was whether the applicant was entitled to leave to proceed with her complaint under section 96(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW). The court had to consider the principles that apply to the grant of leave, including whether the complaint had reasonable prospects of success, whether it raised a question of general legal or public importance, and whether the applicant had acted promptly in lodging the complaint. Additionally, the court had to examine whether the applicant had complied with all necessary procedural requirements.
The court carefully evaluated the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. It concluded that the applicant's complaint did not meet the criteria for leave to proceed. The court found that the complaint did not have reasonable prospects of success and did not raise a question of general legal or public importance. Furthermore, the applicant had not acted promptly in lodging the complaint, and there were procedural issues that needed to be addressed. Based on these findings, the court decided to refuse the application for leave under section 96(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW).
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave is refused under s 96(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) for the Applicant’s complaint to proceed.
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.