Leo v Citipointe Christian College - [2025] QCAT 207

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Leo v Citipointe Christian College & Anor [2025] QCAT 207

PARTIES:

EMMEY LEO

(Applicant)

v

CITIPOINTE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE

(First respondent)

BRIAN MULHERAN

(Second respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

ADL042-24

MATTER TYPE:

Anti-Discrimination matters

DELIVERED ON:

21 March 2025

REASONS:

30 May 2025

HEARING DATE:

21 March 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Traves

ORDERS:

1. The application for miscellaneous matters (adjournment and dismissal/strike out) filed on 10 January 2025 is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

DISCRIMINATION – DIRECT DISCRIMINATION – INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION DUE TO GENDER IDENTITY – EDUCATION AND GOODS AND SERVICES AREA – where the respondents filed an application to dismiss based on continued non-compliance with Tribunal directions – where directions and application to dismiss emailed to applicant’s legal representatives – where applicant not informed of directions and application to dismiss until recently – whether matter should be dismissed pursuant to s 48 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), s 7, s 10, s 11, s 39,

s 46

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 48

Csorba v Petka Investments Pty Ltd [2024] QCATA 12 Luscombe v Russell [2013] QCAT 53

Mills v Ethell [2024] QCATA 67

Schoch v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2019] QCAT 172

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

On 2 April 2024, the applicant’s complaint made to the Queensland Human Rights Commission was referred to the Tribunal. The complaint stems from the applicant’s time at Citipointe Christian College where she claims she was discriminated against due to identifying as a transgender woman in the areas of education and goods and services.
On 13 June 2024, the Tribunal made directions that the applicant file and serve a Statement of Contentions by 4pm on 13 July 2024. The Tribunal issued the directions by email to LGBTI Legal Service (‘the Service’), the legal representatives of the applicant, and to Carter Newell, the legal representatives of the respondents. The applicant did not herself receive the directions, nor was she informed by the Service of the directions.
On 8 January 2025, the Tribunal issued a notice to the Service and Carter Newell listing the matter for compulsory conference on 19 February 2025.
On 10 January 2025, the respondents filed an application seeking to adjourn the compulsory conference and for the matter to be dismissed pursuant to s 48 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’). The application was served by sending a copy to the Service by email. The applicant again did not receive the application to dismiss, nor was she informed by the Service of the application.
On 23 January 2025, directions were made by another Senior Member to vacate the compulsory conference and for the filing of submissions by the applicant in response to the application for dismissal by 4pm on 13 February 2025.
On 25…

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 Leo v Citipointe Christian College 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] QCAT 207
Decision Date: 21 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Leo brought an action against Citipointe Christian College, alleging discrimination based on gender identity in the provision of education and goods and services. The College applied to have the matter dismissed for non-compliance with Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) directions. The application to dismiss was filed on 10 January 2025, and copies were emailed to Leo’s legal representatives. However, Leo was not informed of the directions and the application to dismiss until recently. The central issue for the court was whether the matter should be dismissed under section 48 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.

The court considered the circumstances surrounding the communication of the Tribunal directions and the application to dismiss. The College argued that since the application to dismiss and the directions had been sent to Leo’s legal representatives, the procedural fairness requirements were met. However, the court found that the applicant, Leo, was not informed of these critical documents until much later. Given this delay, the court determined that there was a failure in procedural fairness, and this warranted a refusal to dismiss the matter. The court also highlighted the importance of ensuring that all parties, particularly the applicant, are fully aware of the procedural steps and requirements in such cases.

In conclusion, the application for miscellaneous matters filed on 10 January 2025 is refused. The court did not find sufficient grounds to dismiss the matter on the basis of non-compliance with QCAT directions, primarily due to the lack of proper communication to the applicant. This decision ensures that the matter will proceed, allowing for a fair exploration of the discrimination claims made by Leo.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for miscellaneous matters (adjournment and dismissal/strike out) filed on 10 January 2025 is refused.

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.