Kumar v Point of Care Diagnostics Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 23 min read

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

Jones v Trad [2013] NSWCA 389

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

  1. 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).

  2. 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.

  3. The applicant is of Indian-Fijian descent and was born in Fiji.

  4. The applicant seeks to amend his complaint. The amendments sought are:

  1. Extending the period to which the complaint of racial discrimination in employment applies to the period between November 2016 and 15 June 2020.

  2. Adding a complaint of victimisation by POCD contrary to s 50(1) of the AD Act covering conduct from June…

CaseChat AU logo

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
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
[2020] NSWCATAD 312
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kumar has brought proceedings against Point of Care Diagnostics Pty Ltd in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, alleging discrimination on the basis of race in his employment. The dispute arose from the period between 1 March 2017 and 15 June 2020. Kumar further alleged that his employer, and two other individuals, breached the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 by permitting unlawful conduct. The court had to decide whether Kumar could amend his complaint to include a more recent period of employment and additional respondents. The court also had to determine if Kumar could add a complaint of racial vilification.

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.