Hickson- Jamieson v University of the Sunshine Coast

This is a case about an anti-discrimination application by Bree Hickson-Jamieson against four respondents, the first of which is Kenneth Young, a lecturer at the University of the Sunshine Coast. The second respondent is the University of the Sunshine Coast, the third respondent is Ros Capeness, and the fourth respondent is the Queensland College of Teachers. The application was made in 2018. The first and second respondents have applied to strike out and/or dismiss the application against them, and the third and fourth respondents have also applied to strike out and/or dismiss the application against them. The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) had previously rejected a strike out application in February 2019. The issue before the Tribunal was whether the proceedings should be struck out and/or dismissed. The Tribunal found that the application by the First and Second Respondents to strike out and dismiss the application against them was upheld and the Applicant’s application against them was dismissed pursuant to s 47 of the QCAT Act. The application by the Third and Fourth Respondents to strike out and dismiss the application against them was also upheld and the Applicant’s application against them was dismissed pursuant to s 47 of the QCAT Act. The application by the Second Respondent to strike out and dismiss the application against it founded upon claims of direct discrimination was upheld and the Applicant’s application against it on that ground was dismissed pursuant to s 47 of the QCAT Act. In respect of the balance of the claims by the Applicant against the Second Respondent arising solely in respect of alleged indirect discrimination against her by the Second Respondent, the application by the Second Respondent to strike out or dismiss those claims was refused. The Tribunal also ordered that the Applicant must file and serve on the Second Respondent within 21 days of the delivery of these Reasons a new points of contention document which coherently identifies the material facts relied upon to establish conduct allegedly constituting indirect discrimination against her by the Second Respondent on or after 9 March 2016 and sets out the legal foundation for such a claim and the relief or remedies sought in respect of it. The parties have liberty to apply in respect of any other consequential or other orders which might be required to be made.