Hallmann v Southern Cross University - [2025] NSWCATAD 172

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hallmann v Southern Cross University [2025] NSWCATAD 172
Hearing dates: On the papers, final submissions 18 July 2025
Date of orders: 21 July 2025
Decision date: 21 July 2025
Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: P Roney KC, Senior Member
S Davison, General Member
Decision:
(1) A hearing is dispensed with under s 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.
(2) The application to amend the complaint is dismissed.

Catchwords:
HUMAN RIGHTS - Discrimination - Factors relevant to power to amend complaint under s103 Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW)

Legislation Cited:
Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
A Braiding v Charles Sturt University (2015) NSWCATAD 242
Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175
Cement Australia Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2010) 187 FCR 261
McCrystal v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force (2018) NSWCATAD 299
Singh v South Western Sydney Local Health District [2020] NSWCATAD 263
Tamaya Resources Ltd (in liq) v Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (A Firm), in the matter of Tamaya Resources Ltd (in liq) [2015] FCA 1098
Tamaya Resources Limited (in liq) v Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (A Firm) [2016] FCAFC 2
Thompson v Rail Corporation NSW [2008] NSWADT 329
Zhang v Blinds Pty Ltd trading as Blinds by Peter Meyer [2008] NSWADTAP

Texts Cited:
None cited

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Geoffrey Hallmann (Applicant)
Southern Cross University (Respondent)
Representation: Applicant (Self- represented)
Minter Ellison (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2021/00363087
Publication restriction: Nil

Reasons for the DecIsion

These reasons determine an application (the application) made by the applicant filed on 22 April 2025 to amend his complaint in which he alleges various kinds of discriminatory conduct were engaged in by the respondent whilst he was a tutor at the university. The continuation of the final hearing of the matter has been set down for 8, 9 and 10 September 2025. There was a directions’ hearing in relation to the matter on 30 June 2025 at which the parties addressed, to some degree, the matters raised in the application. The application is supported by affidavits of the applicant sworn on 19 March 2025 and 10 April 2025. In other respects, the parties have addressed the issues that concern the application in written submissions and the matter was foreshadowed as one that, because of the impending final hearing, would be determined on the papers.
At the hearing on 30 June 2025 the applicant was given 7 days in which to file any further submissions on which of his proposed amendments constituted new claims and which were existing claims, however he did not file any further submissions until late on 18 July 2025, eleven days after the submissions were due. On a review of those submissions, which were 99 pages in length and which he referred to as “draft”, it is apparent that the submissions go to all of the issues raised in the…

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 Hallmann v Southern Cross University 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: [2025] NSWCATAD 172
Decision Date: 21 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Southern Cross University was the respondent in a complaint brought by the applicant, Hallmann, to the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board, alleging discrimination under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW). Hallmann sought to amend the complaint, which the university opposed. The matter was referred to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal (CAT) to determine the application. The primary issue before the tribunal was whether the power to amend the complaint under section 103 of the Act could be exercised in the circumstances of this case. The tribunal considered various factors, including the timing and nature of the proposed amendments, the potential impact on the respondent, and whether the amendments were within the scope of the original complaint.

The tribunal held that the power to amend a complaint under section 103 of the Act is discretionary and should be exercised judiciously, taking into account all relevant factors. It found that the proposed amendments were significant and went beyond the scope of the original complaint. The tribunal also considered the potential prejudice to the respondent if the amendments were allowed, given the delay in seeking them and the substantial changes they would entail. Ultimately, the tribunal concluded that the application to amend the complaint should be dismissed, as the proposed changes were not warranted in the circumstances of this case.

The tribunal did not find it necessary to hold a hearing, as the application could be decided on the material before it. It dismissed the application to amend the complaint, finding that the proposed amendments were not appropriate under section 103 of the Act. The tribunal's decision highlights the importance of carefully considering the factors relevant to amending a complaint and the need for applicants to be mindful of the potential impact of significant changes to their original complaint.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) A hearing is dispensed with under s 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.

(2) The application to amend the complaint is dismissed.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Hallmann v Southern Cross University [2025] NSWCATAD 172
Hearing dates:	On the papers, final submissions 18 July 2025
Date of orders:	21 July 2025
Decision date:	21 July 2025
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	P Roney KC, Senior Member S Davison, General Member
Decision:	(1) A hearing is dispensed with under s 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. (2) The application to amend the complaint is dismissed.
Catchwords:	HUMAN RIGHTS - Discrimination - Factors relevant to power to amend complaint under s103 Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW)
Legislation Cited:	Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	A Braiding v Charles Sturt University (2015) NSWCATAD 242 Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175 Cement Australia Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2010) 187 FCR 261 McCrystal v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force (2018) NSWCATAD 299 Singh v South Western Sydney Local Health District [2020] NSWCATAD 263 Tamaya Resources Ltd (in liq) v Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (A Firm), in the matter of Tamaya Resources Ltd (in liq) [2015] FCA 1098 Tamaya Resources Limited (in liq) v Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (A Firm) [2016] FCAFC 2 Thompson v Rail Corporation NSW [2008] NSWADT 329 Zhang v Blinds Pty Ltd trading as Blinds by Peter Meyer [2008] NSWADTAP
Texts Cited:	None cited
Category:	Procedural rulings
Parties:	Geoffrey Hallmann (Applicant) Southern Cross University (Respondent)
Representation:	Applicant (Self- represented) Minter Ellison (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2021/00363087
Publication restriction:	Nil