Paramasivam v University of New South Wales

The case of Paramasivam v University of New South Wales involved Ms Paramasivam, a former employee of the University of New South Wales (UNSW), who alleged she had been racially discriminated against by UNSW based on her Sri Lankan ethnic origin. Ms Paramasivam brought this action following unsuccessful attempts to resolve her grievances through various other avenues, including the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC), the Ombudsman’s office, the Independent Commission against Corruption, and the Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales. Her allegations centred on UNSW arranging for her arrest on four separate occasions between June 2003 and October 2004 while she was on UNSW grounds attempting to see the Vice Chancellor to discuss her grievances.

The legal issues the court had to determine were whether Ms Paramasivam's claims were confined to the alleged discriminatory conduct as required by section 46PO(3) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) and whether the termination of her complaint by HREOC, based on it lacking substance, barred her from proceeding with her application to the court. The court also had to consider whether there was evidence to support Ms Paramasivam's claim that UNSW had discriminated against her on the basis of her race.

In addressing these issues, the court found that Ms Paramasivam's application to the Court was indeed confined to the alleged discriminatory conduct of UNSW in arranging for her arrest on the specified occasions. The court reviewed the reasons provided by HREOC for terminating her complaint, which found it lacking in substance. The court concluded that the termination of the complaint by HREOC was not a bar to Ms Paramasivam proceeding with her application to the Court, provided her application related to the same or substantially the same acts as the terminated complaint. The court further held that there was no evidence to support Ms Paramasivam's claim of racial discrimination by UNSW, as the applicable test required an act involving a distinction based on race that had the purpose or effect of impairing equal enjoyment of human rights, and the evidence did not establish this.

The appeal was dismissed, and Ms Paramasivam was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal to the University of New South Wales.