King v SA Psychological Board

In this appeal, the appellant, King, challenges the decision of the Equal Opportunity Tribunal, presided over by a Judge of the District Court, which ordered him to pay costs to the respondent, the South Australian Psychological Board, under section 26 of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984. The appeal was brought under section 98 of the same Act. The central dispute revolves around the respondent's handling of a complaint made by the appellant in 1995 under the Whistleblowers Protection Act 1993, which the appellant claimed was not properly investigated, resulting in victimisation. The appellant subsequently withdrew the complaint before it was heard by the Tribunal.

The legal issues the court had to address include whether the complaint to the Tribunal was frivolous or vexatious, as defined under section 26 of the Equal Opportunity Act, and whether the Tribunal was justified in ordering the appellant to pay costs. The court also needed to determine if the appellant's allegations, as presented, could constitute a valid claim of victimisation under the Whistleblowers Protection Act. The court considered whether the appellant's failure to properly identify a new disclosure, the lack of evidence that the detriment was caused by the respondent due to the disclosure, and the withdrawal of the complaint indicated that the proceedings were without merit.

The court found that the appellant's complaint did not constitute a valid disclosure under the Whistleblowers Protection Act as it was a repeat of a previous complaint. Additionally, the detriment alleged by the appellant was not caused by the respondent on the grounds of making a disclosure, but rather due to the respondent's failure to reach a specific conclusion in their investigation. The court concluded that the proceedings were frivolous or vexatious because they had no prospect of success and were likely to result in expense and inconvenience without any possibility of a favourable outcome. The appellant's withdrawal of the complaint to allow the Ombudsman to investigate further did not change the nature of the proceedings before the Tribunal. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Tribunal's decision to order the appellant to pay costs.