Patrick v State of South Australia

The matter before the court involved a complaint from the complainant against the State of South Australia regarding alleged sex discrimination and sexual harassment. The complainant had initially lodged a complaint with the Commissioner for Equal Opportunity, but the Commissioner declined to recognise the complaint. Consequently, the matter was referred to the Equal Opportunities Tribunal for further consideration.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide pertained to the scope of the Tribunal's jurisdiction in considering the complaint. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the events outlined in the complainant's Further & Better Particulars document constituted a single contravention of the relevant legislation. The court was also required to assess whether the events that allegedly occurred on 23 and 24 March 2006 could be considered part of a series of acts that formed a single contravention, as the legislation only allows the Tribunal to address matters that have been referred to it by the Commissioner.

The court found that the alleged acts of contravention had not been referred to the Tribunal by the Commissioner and, as such, could not be considered by the Tribunal. Furthermore, the court determined that the events that allegedly occurred on 23 and 24 March 2006 were not part of a series of acts including 23 and 24 March 2006, that taken together, form a single contravention. The legislation was clear that the Tribunal may only address those matters that have been referred to it by the Commissioner. Consequently, the preliminary issue was determined against the complainant, and the respondent was entitled to the order it sought.

The Tribunal ordered that the complaints with respect to the events of 17 March 2003, May 2003, mid-2003 to mid-2004, 29 July 2004, August 2004 to April 2007, 31 January 2005, 12 February 2005, November 2005, Murray Bridge Court, and 29 May 2006 be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The events that allegedly occurred on 23 and 24 March 2006 could still be considered at the hearing of the complaint, but only to explain the later events.