Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Kumar v Point of Care Diagnostics Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCATAD 312 Hearing dates: 18 November 2020 Date of orders: 14 December 2020 Decision date: 14 December 2020 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: C Ludlow, Senior Member Decision: (1) The complaint is amended:
(a) To extend the period covered by the complaint of discrimination in employment on the ground of race, under sections 7 and 8 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, to between 1 March 2017 and 15 June 2020; and
(b) To add a complaint that Mr Alex Cross and Mr Rupert Haines breached s 52 of the Anti-Discrimination Act by permitting unlawful conduct between 1 March 2017 and 15 June 2020.
(2) Mr Rupert Haines and Mr Alex Cross are joined as respondents to the proceedings for the purposes of the complaint in 1(b) only.
(3) The application to amend the complaint by adding a complaint of racial vilification is refused.
(4) The proceedings are referred to the Registry to be listed for directions.
Catchwords: HUMAN RIGHTS – discrimination – context - in employment
HUMAN RIGHTS – discrimination – grounds – racial discrimination
HUMAN RIGHTS – victimisation
HUMAN RIGHTS – racial vilification
CIVIL PROCEDURE – Parties – joinder
CIVIL PROCEDURE – originating process - amendment
Legislation Cited: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Dixon v RNJ Sicame Pty Ltd [2002] NSWADT 154
Dutt v Central Coast Area Health Service [2002] NSWADT 133
Ekermawi v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2019] NSWCATAD 79
Goldsteen v TCI Bondi Junction Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCATAD 135
Hanratty v Kempsey Shire Council [2002] NSWADT 232
Seltsam Pty Ltd v McGuiness [2000] NSWCA 29; (2000) 49 NSWLR 262
Thompson v Rail Corporation NSW [2008] NSWADT 329
Zhang v Blinds Pty Ltd t/as Blinds by Peter Meyer [2008] NSWADTAP 24
Texts Cited: None cited
Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Anup Kumar (Applicant)
Point of Care Diagnostics (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
Connect Legal (Applicant)
Respondent (Self Represented)
File Number(s): 2020/00329895 Publication restriction: Nil
REASONS FOR DECISION
-
On 16 October 2020 the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board referred a complaint by the applicant, Mr Anup Kumar, to this Tribunal under s 93C(b) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (the AD Act).
-
The complaint as referred was a complaint of discrimination in employment on the ground of race against the respondent, Point of Care Diagnostics Pty Ltd (POCD), under ss 7, 8 and 53 of the AD Act covering a period between 2 August 2019 and 2 June 2020.
-
The applicant is of Indian-Fijian descent and was born in Fiji.
-
The applicant seeks to amend his complaint. The amendments sought are:
Extending the period to which the complaint of racial discrimination in employment applies to the period between November 2016 and 15 June 2020.
Adding a complaint of victimisation by POCD contrary to s 50(1) of the AD Act covering conduct from June…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Kumar v Point of Care Diagnostics Pty Ltd 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
- [2020] NSWCATAD 312
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that Kumar could extend the period covered by his complaint to include the period between 1 March 2017 and 15 June 2020. The court also allowed Kumar to add a complaint that Mr Alex Cross and Mr Rupert Haines breached s 52 of the Anti-Discrimination Act by permitting unlawful conduct. However, the court refused Kumar leave to add a complaint of racial vilification, as Kumar did not demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success on the merits of that complaint. The court held that the application to amend the complaint should be determined on its merits, rather than on the basis of whether Kumar had leave to amend his complaint.
The court ordered that the complaint be amended to extend the period covered by the complaint of discrimination in employment on the ground of race. The court also ordered that Mr Rupert Haines and Mr Alex Cross be joined as respondents to the proceedings for the purposes of the complaint in 1(b) only. The court refused to allow Kumar to add a complaint of racial vilification to his complaint. The court ordered that the proceedings be referred to the Registry to be listed for directions.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) The complaint is amended:
(a) To extend the period covered by the complaint of discrimination in employment on the ground of race, under sections 7 and 8 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, to between 1 March 2017 and 15 June 2020; and
(b) To add a complaint that Mr Alex Cross and Mr Rupert Haines breached s 52 of the Anti-Discrimination Act by permitting unlawful conduct between 1 March 2017 and 15 June 2020.
(2) Mr Rupert Haines and Mr Alex Cross are joined as respondents to the proceedings for the purposes of the complaint in 1(b) only.
(3) The application to amend the complaint by adding a complaint of racial vilification is refused.
(4) The proceedings are referred to the Registry to be listed for directions.
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.