Parent v Matthew Flinders Anglican College - [2023] QCAT 42

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Parent v Matthew Flinders Anglican College [2023] QCAT 42

PARTIES:

PARENT

(applicant)

v

MATTHEW FLINDERS ANGLICAN COLLEGE LIMITED

(first respondent)

and

STUART MEADE

(second respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

ADL117-22

MATTER TYPE:

Anti-discrimination matters

DELIVERED ON:

6 February 2023

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Lember

ORDERS:

1. The application for an interim order is refused.

2. The publication of the names of the applicant and their family, and of information that identifies the applicant or their family other than to the parties to the proceeding is prohibited pursuant to section 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – application for an interim order before referral of discrimination complaint – whether interim order should be made – confidentiality order

Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) s 46, s 129, s 130, s 144, s 174A, Sch 1

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 32, s 66

Beck v Headland Golf Club [2021] QCAT 354
Boles & Walsh v Vonk & ors [2022] QCAT 144
Coop v State of Queensland [2014] QCATA 205
Singh v Donoghue & Rockhampton Cab Company Ltd [2013] QCAT 526

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) (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

What is the application about?

The Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) (ADA) prohibits discrimination based on certain attributes, including impairments such as a condition, illness or disease that impairs a person’s thought processes, perception of reality, emotions, or judgment or that results in disturbed behaviour.[1]
[1]Schedule 1 Dictionary.
The applicant suffers from Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (C-PTSD), an attribute in respect of which discrimination in the supply of services is prohibited.[2] The applicant is the parent of a child or children who attend the first respondent College. The second respondent is the Principal of the College.
[2]Section 46, ADA.
On 18 October 2022 the applicant made a complaint to the AHRC against the President of the College’s Parents & Friends (P&F) Association and against the Association itself arising from circumstances in which a scheduled meeting between the applicant and the P&F President was cancelled.
On 9 December 2022 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Queensland Human Rights Commission (QHRC) against the second respondent alleging victimisation contrary to sections 129 and 130 of the ADA arising from a 4 November 2022 letter in which a communications restriction was imposed upon the applicant as follows:
..apart from matters directly involving your [child].., which can be addressed to [their] classroom teacher or the Head of [redacted]…all other communication with the College is to be directed to my [Principal’s] office.
On 22 December 2022 the applicant applied to the Tribunal for a ‘pre-referral’ interim order under section 144 of the ADA seeking an order that:
The respondents are prohibited from restricting or otherwise interfering with the communications of [the…

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 Parent v Matthew Flinders Anglican 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: [2023] QCAT 42
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal was an application for an interim order by the parent of a child attending Matthew Flinders Anglican College. The applicant alleged discrimination and victimisation based on their Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (C-PTSD). The parent sought an order prohibiting the College and its Principal from restricting communication with the College, its staff, and associated bodies. The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the interim order was necessary to prevent prejudice to the investigation or conciliation of the complaint or to an order the Tribunal might make after a hearing. The Tribunal considered the principles for granting interlocutory injunctions and found that the applicant must establish a prima facie case and weigh the balance of convenience. The Tribunal found that the communications restriction did not prejudice the investigation or conciliation of the complaint or an order the Tribunal might make after a hearing. Therefore, the application for an interim order was dismissed. The Tribunal did, however, make a non-publication order to protect the privacy and mental health of the applicant and their family.

Member Lember considered the evidence and submissions from both parties and determined that the interim orders sought by the applicant were not necessary to prevent prejudice to the investigation or conciliation of the complaint or to an order the Tribunal might make after a hearing. The Tribunal found that the restriction on communication did not harm the investigation or conciliation process. The Tribunal also found that the restriction did not prevent the Tribunal from making orders that the conduct complained of amounted to discrimination, victimisation or from making an order permitting unrestricted communication. The application for an interim order was dismissed. However, the Tribunal made a non-publication order to protect the privacy and mental health of the applicant and their family, as the medical evidence pertaining to the applicant and their children was confidential and private. The order prohibited the publication of the name of the applicant and their family, and of information that would enable the applicant or their family to be identified.

Orders